On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Timothy Luoma wrote: > and are 64-bit—the last part of that is welcome news to those who > feared the switch to Intel’s current lineup meant sliding back to > 32-bit computing once Intel chips start showing up in Macs Ummmm.... did you actually take a look at what's required for coding that? FYI the dev boxes we have support EMT64 and it's anything but elegant. There's only two 64-bit processors worth looking at - IBM's PowerPC and AMD's Opteron. Pushing 64-bit address space around where 32-bit can be used, aka Intel's solution, slows things *waaay* down. Why do you suppose Microsoft hasn't jumped right on it? AMD has opened a fair challenge to Intel to show their stuff - so far Intel is ignoring the challenge because they know AMD has done their homework and will stomp all over them. There's two, and only two, elegant solutions to 64-bit desktop computing that exist today - linux running on an AMD Opteron, or Mac OS X Tiger running on a PowerPC970. Everybody else is in the "wannabe" category with promises that as of yet are nothing but vaporware. Intel is the market leader, with a solid proven history, in selling vaporware solutions. -- Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://listserver.themacintoshguy.com/pipermail/titanium/attachments/20050824/6a887b1b/attachment.html