The Inquirer has posted an interesting look at the 64-bit processor space, or lack thereof. The editorial looks at offerings from Intel, AMD, and Motorola/Apple, with a little bit of IBM thrown in. This isnit a rumor look at Apple moving to a 64-bit processor, but rather a look at where the industry stands right now in regards to Windows and Apple. From the article:
Behind Door #1 weive got Intel and its power-sucking, heat-generating, marketing-nightmare of a CPU, codenamed Itanic. Itanic sales positively boomed in 2002, rising 700% from 2001! For those of you that are curious thatis a rise (in real numbers) from approximately 500 sales to 3500 sales, meaning there are now approximately .000016 Itanium systems for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Truly, a new era is upon us. [...]
Behind Door #2 weive got AMD, whose Hammer architecture has received tremendous interest (both positive and negative) from all corners. Unlike Itanic it appears it can actually do something with current software (besides show us just how slow 486 performance really would be in modern programs), but unlike Itanium itis based on the current x86 standard. While not too many people are arguing over Hammeris level of performance, lots of folk are arguing over whether or not the CPU will find a 64-bit market, manage to create one, or be stuck in 32-bit land forever. [...]
And then .thereis Motorola, the company whois not even managed to demonstrate a G5 processor to the press, much less ship any. Itis a far cry from the days of yore two years ago when several prominent Web sites reported detailed G5 specifications and plans for the CPU to ship as soon as early 2002. As time went by and no Apple G5 appeared, most dismissed the rumors as just that --rumors [...]
Thereis more in the full article, which we deem an interesting read, including a fairly frank assessment of the lag in development at Motorola.