Quote #1

"If there aren't widespread, consumer-priced 64-bit machines available in three years, we're going to have a hard time developing games that are more compelling than last year's games."

“I think that 64-bit technology is a lot closer to being taken advantage of than most of you are thinking. Voice recognition and super smart operating systems are much further off.”


Quote #2

"Intel's claims are wholly out of touch with reality. On a daily basis we're running into the Windows® 2GB barrier with our next-generation content development and preprocessing tools.

If cost-effective, backwards-compatible 64-bit CPU's were available today, we'd buy them today. We need them today. It looks like we'll get them in April.

Any claim that "4GB is enough" or that address windowing extensions are a viable solution are just plain nuts. Do people really think programmers will re-adopt early 1990's bank-swapping technology?

Many of these upcoming [AMD] Opteron™ [processor-based] motherboards have 16 DIMM slots; you can fill them with 8GB of RAM for $800 at today's pricewatch.com prices. This platform is going to be a godsend for anybody running serious workstation apps. It will beat other 64-bit workstation platforms (SPARC/PA-RISC/Itanium) in price/performance by a factor of 4X or more. The days of $4000 workstation and server CPU's are over, and those of $1000 CPU's are numbered.

Regarding this "far off" application compatibility, we've been running the 64-bit SuSE Linux distribution on Hammer for over 3 months. We're going to ship the 64-bit version of UT2003 at or before the consumer [upcoming AMD]Athlon™ 64 [processor] launch. And our next-generation engine won't just support 64-bit, but will basically REQUIRE it on the content-authoring side.

We tell Intel this all the time, begging and pleading for a cost-effective 64-bit desktop solution. Intel should be listening to customers and taking the leadership role on the 64-bit desktop transition, not making these ridiculous "end of the decade" statements to the press.

If the aim of this PR strategy is to protect the non-existent market for $4000 Itaniums from the soon-to-be massive market for cost-effective desktop 64-bit, it will fail very quickly." (From Slash Dot, Feb. 24, 2003)