[X4U] Apple's move to Intel 64 bit?

[Adam Bass]

Scott, thanks for clarifying. What you said about the "bottom up"  
strategy makes perfect sense.

Adam



On Jun 13, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Scott McCulloch wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Adam Bass wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 7, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Scott McCulloch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Richard Gilmore wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Will the MacTel's Pentiums be 64bit?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not according to this:
>>> http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20050607081920942
>>>
>>> Which does seem disappointing, or confusing, or something to me,  
>>> given Apple's insistence that 64bit was an important step for OS  
>>> X, one of the benefits of G5s, etc. I certainly bought the  
>>> argument... so I'm not quite sure how to take this.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>
>> Could you please quote or paraphrase what Macfixit says regarding  
>> this? The page you linked to is only available to Macfixit Pro  
>> subscribers. Macworld says they think Apple would probably not  
>> abandon the 64-bit architecture, and that Intel has made 64-bit  
>> chips (although not very successful ones as far as I know), and  
>> that Intel would probably make a 64-bit chip for Apple. Of course,  
>> this is completely based on conjecture, and there's no proof one  
>> way or the other that I know of. I'm curious as to how Macfixit  
>> came to the conclusion that Intel would not make a 64-bit chip for  
>> Apple. Are they just guessing. It seems like no one would know  
>> that information yet.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>
> Well, I would, but it seems I can't access it either. I'm not a  
> subscriber, so I don't know exactly how I was able to view it  
> before, but it didn't occur to me that it was restricted that way  
> since I was able to read it.
>
> If I remember correctly, the article was simply pointing out that  
> in Apple's documentation about creating Universal Binaries, there  
> was mention of Intel's 32-bit architecture, but no mention at all  
> about 64-bit. I think they were assuming that meant that at this  
> phase, at least, 64-bit was possibly not part of the plan.
>
> Since then, however, I've read a lot of additional speculation,  
> most of it suggesting that it's too soon to tell - and that perhaps  
> part of the reason Apple is planning a "bottom up" strategy for the  
> changeover (i.e. lower spec hardware first), is that it gives more  
> time for Intel to come up with the "right" processor for the "pro"  
> level machines, including being 64-bit.
>
> I'm not aware of any official announcements on any of this.
>
> Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> X4U mailing list
> X4U at listserver.themacintoshguy.com
> http://listserver.themacintoshguy.com/mailman/listinfo/x4u
>
> Listmom is trying to clean out his closets! Vintage Mac and random  
> stuff:
>         http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZmacguy1984
>