<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Aug 24, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Timothy Luoma wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Helvetica">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</FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>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.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>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.</DIV><DIV>--</DIV><DIV>Chris</DIV></BODY></HTML>