it was probably a typo. If you weren't so lazy you could have removed the second .com and see that the link worksMight want to proof read posts before submitting them. .com.com isn't a valid domain :tongue:
You know... it is funny. Remember back when AMD released the first x86 64 bit processor, and it blew the Itanium 64 bit solution out of the way and everyone was salivating at the thought of a working 64 bit version of Windows? Remember how Microsoft announced delay after delay at even introducing the first 64 bit version and how, when they did, it was so pitiful and obviously didn't have any real driver support?
Remember how, as a result of that, everyone was quite peeved at Microsoft, saying that the only reason that they were holding back was because they didn't want to embarras Intel so badly since Intel didn't have a good 64 bit core out at the time?
We know that Vista will supposedly have a good 64 bit version at launch (unless they hold back because Intel is only releasing 32 bit laptop processors again). Well, if you want to upgrade to Vista in the future, which may not be too far away now, then you will want the option of 64 bit, I would think.
Well, now there is a 64 bit laptop processor out there, and no one is really even mentioning that, by comparison, the Core processor is absolutely crippled in terms of future upgrades.
I'm not saying that this should warrant a lot of attention or anything, but it should at the least be MENTIONED. Instead, at the end of this article, they give this patronizing garbage about "well, maybe someone should buy some Turion 64 X2s so that they can keep Intel from taking over" kind of line. Why not mention a real, solid, reason based on the technical merits of the platform, like saying that "While you may get the fastest dual core laptop out at the moment by buying a Core Duo laptop, buying a Turion 64 X2 will provide a better software upgrade path in the future."
I just wish that the review sites would stop sweeping this glaring omission on the part of Intel under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist. Just a mention, that's all, just mention it...
Particularly for those of us who will be running Linux on their laptops... as I couldn't imagine not getting a 64-bit capable laptop.
it was probably a typo. If you weren't so lazy you could have removed the second .com and see that the link worksMight want to proof read posts before submitting them. .com.com isn't a valid domain :tongue:
I think the new Intel Merom are 64-bit enabled. You realize that in a world whre 99.99 percent of programs are native 32-bit, preformance gained by a 64-bits operating system is next to nothing. In a prefect world it would take you an eye blink to convert them all, in reality it takes years. It is just childish to think everybody switches to 64-bit as soon as Microsoft put a 64-bit OS out. There is much more involved and has nothing to do with hardware.
oh, sorry then
I agree...
In fact I run SuSE 10.1 x86_64 and I will be looking for a 64bit CPU in my next laptop. This makes my dilema that much more annoying. I haven't made a move on Core Duo because it's only 32bit, I think Merom is supposed to be 64bit. So it looks like I'm going to have to wait until Core Octo or something like that before Merom is affordable. And hence I still have the graphics problem as well. Hopefully the AMD-ATI deal could change the GPU situation for the better. Until then I'm waiting patiently
You know... it is funny. Remember back when AMD released the first x86 64 bit processor, and it blew the Itanium 64 bit solution out of the way and everyone was salivating at the thought of a working 64 bit version of Windows? Remember how Microsoft announced delay after delay at even introducing the first 64 bit version and how, when they did, it was so pitiful and obviously didn't have any real driver support?
Remember how, as a result of that, everyone was quite peeved at Microsoft, saying that the only reason that they were holding back was because they didn't want to embarras Intel so badly since Intel didn't have a good 64 bit core out at the time?
We know that Vista will supposedly have a good 64 bit version at launch (unless they hold back because Intel is only releasing 32 bit laptop processors again). Well, if you want to upgrade to Vista in the future, which may not be too far away now, then you will want the option of 64 bit, I would think.
Well, now there is a 64 bit laptop processor out there, and no one is really even mentioning that, by comparison, the Core processor is absolutely crippled in terms of future upgrades.
I'm not saying that this should warrant a lot of attention or anything, but it should at the least be MENTIONED. Instead, at the end of this article, they give this patronizing garbage about "well, maybe someone should buy some Turion 64 X2s so that they can keep Intel from taking over" kind of line. Why not mention a real, solid, reason based on the technical merits of the platform, like saying that "While you may get the fastest dual core laptop out at the moment by buying a Core Duo laptop, buying a Turion 64 X2 will provide a better software upgrade path in the future."
I just wish that the review sites would stop sweeping this glaring omission on the part of Intel under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist. Just a mention, that's all, just mention it...
Particularly for those of us who will be running Linux on their laptops... as I couldn't imagine not getting a 64-bit capable laptop.
Then again, by the time Core 2 Duo starts actually showing up in laptops, maybe the Turion 64 X4s will be out (could have sworn that I saw something about that for '07, or was that just for desktops?).
I was insinuating that Microsoft was trying to hold back AMD's advantage by slowing down the 64 bit adoption in order to not embarrass Intel, thusly putting off the beginning of the transition to 64 bit.