Intel Says "No" to 64-bit Pentium 4 in Retail

<A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040325151223.html" target="_new">http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040325151223.html</A>

Looks like my predictions earlier this year may still all materialize

I do wonder what the reason is though.. too hot ? too slow ? (some rumours indicate prescotts ALU's would only run at half speed in 64 bit mode, though this *could* be related to the heat issue). or just an attempt to protect Itanium as long as intel can ? Its likely easier to regain marketshare from AMD's x86-64 chips later as to gain marketshare with IPF from x86-64.

Whatever the reason, the reasons given in the article are bogus. OEM's would only have to say 'we don't support beta versions of windows', I don't see how that would put enormous ammounts of stress on their tech support.

And when was the first time intel tried to protect endusers from overly optimistic expectactions because the software wasnt there yet to make use of MMX, SSE, SSE2, Hyperthreading, etc, etc. That is utter bullshit.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

The ALU is allready twice as slow compare to NW.Universal timing for 32/64 bit data precision

i need to change useur name.