Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (140141)	7/25/2001 10:57:35 PM
From: dale_laroy	Respond to of 186894

>I hope your timeframe is long, because 386 was out for many years before the 32-bit extensions really started to take hold.< Only seven.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (140141)	7/25/2001 11:11:22 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: 386 was out for many years before the 32-bit extensions really started to take hold. Yes, but buyers were paying a big premium for 32-bit processors for a half a decade before there were more than a few exotic 32-bit apps to run on them. And avoiding the old 16-bit processors like the plague. What would you do if you were presented with the choice of a 32-bit or 64-bit system if the 64-bit system cost $100 to $200 more? Even if you knew that there was little or no software that would take advantage of the 64-bit system? Assume that both systems perform about the same on 32-bit software and that both are made by the same company. (Both Compaq/Intel, for the sake of argument)