64-bit x86 Computing Reaches 10th Anniversary 332
illiteratehack writes "10 years ago AMD released its first Opteron processor, the first 64-bit x86 processor. The firm's 64-bit 'extensions' allowed the chip to run existing 32-bit x86 code in a bid to avoid the problems faced by Intel's Itanium processor. However AMD suffered from a lack of native 64-bit software support, with Microsoft's Windows XP 64-bit edition severely hampering its adoption in the workstation market."
But it worked out in the end.
Let us give thanks.... (Score:5, Funny)
Twice as big as it needs to be? (Score:0, Funny)
Does 64 bits really mean that every program is twice as big as it needs to be? Every time I hear about an innovation that requires things to be bigger, I question the necessity.
Re:Did it really work? (Score:4, Funny)
If it's such a success, why does 64-bit software generally only run marginally faster than its 32-bit build? 64-bit binaries are larger and might run 103% at the speed of 32-bit if you're lucky.
Sure, it helps with the 4GB memory space limit, but so can smart memory management and other approaches.
I could see it being useful for super-computing things, but in general, there still just doesn't seem to be a point.
Wow, just wow. Do you actually work in the software field???
Re:Whatever! PowerPC been doing 64-bit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Did it really work? (Score:5, Funny)
do you? for average PC applications (browsing the web, e-mail, office documents) 64 bit gives no advantage. for the above-average applications (multimedia creation/editing, CADD, running multiple VMs, ) it's very helpful.
1) Yes, I do.
2) You are so wrong that it's actually funny.