Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter? - Page 2

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 7, 2005 2:34:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:3F2pe.8305$Kb2.4765@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...

> This has become pointless, I keep asking for the name or type of
> application which any significant postion of desktop users (personal or
> business) would find useful enough to justify buying a 64 bit computer
> before the normal lifespan of the existing 32 but unit. Haven't gotten it
> yet.

Right, because that's a pointless question.

Before the WWW was invented, you would ask for the application that
would make the ordinary person want to, and be able to, use the Internet.
Nobody could name it.

When the '486 was released, articles said it was so powerful it would
forever be in the server room, never on the desktop. Where were the
applications that would need it?

Of course people aren't using the applications today that require
64-bits to work smoothly because they don't *have* 64-bits. Perhaps in the
near future, people will use 3D rendering software on their desktops that
rival what's now done only in Hollywood. Crazy? Who would have predicted in
1990 that 15 years later people would do desktop publishing on their
desktops comparable to what's done in publishing houses?

Anything that can be done, people will want to do it on their desktops.
And as soon as it's possible, they'll start doing it.

> I don't expect any rush to 64 bit, when it's cheap and time for a new
> computer, then people will go 64 bit. I would guess that means 90% of the
> office desktops and 75% of the home units will be 32 bits until they hit
> end of useful life.

I predict that it will be comparable to the switch from 16-bits to
32-bits. Perhaps slightly slower.

DS
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 9, 2005 7:54:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:3F2pe.8305$Kb2.4765@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>This has become pointless, I keep asking for the name or type of
>>application which any significant postion of desktop users (personal or
>>business) would find useful enough to justify buying a 64 bit computer
>>before the normal lifespan of the existing 32 but unit. Haven't gotten it
>>yet.
>
>
> Right, because that's a pointless question.
>
> Before the WWW was invented, you would ask for the application that
> would make the ordinary person want to, and be able to, use the Internet.
> Nobody could name it.
>
> When the '486 was released, articles said it was so powerful it would
> forever be in the server room, never on the desktop. Where were the
> applications that would need it?
>
> Of course people aren't using the applications today that require
> 64-bits to work smoothly because they don't *have* 64-bits. Perhaps in the
> near future, people will use 3D rendering software on their desktops that
> rival what's now done only in Hollywood. Crazy? Who would have predicted in
> 1990 that 15 years later people would do desktop publishing on their
> desktops comparable to what's done in publishing houses?
>
> Anything that can be done, people will want to do it on their desktops.
> And as soon as it's possible, they'll start doing it.

We've had 64 bits for a decade, and the killer desktop apps are somewhat
missing. I'm not holding my breath, the people who do mail and browsing,
maybe their taxes and a "fits on the screen" spreadsheet are the
majority of both personal and business users. Documents, spreadsheets,
E-mail and web pages are limited by people now. Only taxes could be
complex enough to require 64 bits ;-(
>
>
>>I don't expect any rush to 64 bit, when it's cheap and time for a new
>>computer, then people will go 64 bit. I would guess that means 90% of the
>>office desktops and 75% of the home units will be 32 bits until they hit
>>end of useful life.
>
>
> I predict that it will be comparable to the switch from 16-bits to
> 32-bits. Perhaps slightly slower.

Were you around as a participant at that time? The 16 bit systems were
so limited by what you could use and address and do that people jumped
from 16 to 32 bits as soon as they could, and that was "way too long"
for DOS users, much less for the UNIX users of us.

It takes some level of dissatisfaction with what you have to make you
spend, "you" being personal or corporate. Maybe when that killer 64 bit
app comes out. When people are ready to buy a new system anyway they may
go 64 bit if the price is similar. It is at the bottom end and
definitely isn't at the server end.

Save this post, if a killer app comes out which needs 64 bits in two
years, you can reply.
--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 9, 2005 5:53:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:k4Ppe.13533$Oq7.12222@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

> Were you around as a participant at that time?

Yes. Do you remember how quickly the requirements on typical games went
up? How one year most games required only a 386 and a year later they
required a 486? How long was it after that before 133Mhz or better was
needed?

I just grabbed a random program off my shelf and the box requirements
say "800Mhz Pentium 3 or faster". This would mean your CPU can be no more
than 5 years old *if* it was the very fastest CPU purchased at the time of
purchase! More realistically (few typical users buy the very fastest CPU
available), it means your CPU can be no more than 3 years old.

> The 16 bit systems were so limited by what you could use and address and
> do that people jumped from 16 to 32 bits as soon as they could, and that
> was "way too long" for DOS users, much less for the UNIX users of us.

Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of memory
in their systems.

> It takes some level of dissatisfaction with what you have to make you
> spend, "you" being personal or corporate. Maybe when that killer 64 bit
> app comes out. When people are ready to buy a new system anyway they may
> go 64 bit if the price is similar. It is at the bottom end and definitely
> isn't at the server end.

All new x86 CPUs except perhaps the very low end will be 64-bit capable
in less than two years. How long do you think it will be before new PCs ship
with a 64-bit operating system by default?

> Save this post, if a killer app comes out which needs 64 bits in two
> years, you can reply.

There were ways to handle larger amounts of memory on 16-bit systems
too. It is my bet that at least 15% of commodity software will require a
64-bit CPU and OS within five years.

You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
before. Ever.

DS
Related resources
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 9, 2005 11:05:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

In article <d84lqb$o9f$1@nntp.webmaster.com>, David Schwartz wrote:
> I predict that it will be comparable to the switch from 16-bits to
> 32-bits. Perhaps slightly slower.

My personal preference is for 36 bits, when I can get them.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 10, 2005 4:54:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

>
> All new x86 CPUs except perhaps the very low end will be 64-bit capable
> in less than two years. How long do you think it will be before new PCs
> ship with a 64-bit operating system by default?
>
>> Save this post, if a killer app comes out which needs 64 bits in two
>> years, you can reply.
>
> There were ways to handle larger amounts of memory on 16-bit systems
> too. It is my bet that at least 15% of commodity software will require a
> 64-bit CPU and OS within five years.
>
> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
> behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
> before. Ever.
>
> DS
>

Hello!


What do you think about 70bit or 72bit OSés. Also this could be a standard.
Maybe a 84 bit OS.

Otherwise, having a DSP kind of Chip would leave it open how the Hardware is
and will work.
Also implementing Kernel structures into hardware would be very Easy with
DSP kind. Better....

I remémber my ZyXEL ISDN modem, started with V.34 (28800). Today it works as
a 56k8 MoDem, too!!!
1994 bought- about 1998 was the 56k8 Software-Update. Just a software which
reconfigures the Hardware being a new MoDem.

Speed is not relevant. Mhz. Bits are interesting and important to get nearer
to reality... But, do you see a difference between a 16Bit Picture and a
32bit?
Otherwise, Making 32bit Sound and 32bit pictures would be a funny plan :-)
.... What hardware could manage such massive dataload in a fine smooth
behaviour?
I mean real 32 bit not 16bit sound on a 32bit machine.Or 24bit pictures...


I think the only interest in 64bit ist the greater RAM access.

Once upon a time 8bit computers made (make) 8bit sounds, 16bit made 8bit and
16bit, 32bit made (make) 16bit and 64 bit is also making 16bit????? Where is
the innovation?

Are the 64bit making (displaying) real 32bit pictures? of 4294967296
possible clours per pixl, not 16777216. This is 4278190080 colurs more. 95%
More.
And please dont tell me something about 24bit Sound. On PC´s it is just
lousy, scratchy and full of noises.
Maybe a 24bit DAT, ok.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 10, 2005 6:21:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Hi,

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:D 8aa85$4sq$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
> Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
> years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of
memory
> in their systems.

I think you're missing the difference between "physical addresses"
and "virtual addresses", and the difference between architectural
design and CPU implementation.

The physical address size determines how much RAM (and ROM,
memory mapped devices, etc) a CPU can access. The OS uses this
RAM to create "virtual address spaces" (or fake address spaces)
that other software uses.

For about a decade, 80x86 CPUs have had "physical address extensions"
which allows for 36 bit physical addresses. This limits the amount of
RAM (and ROM, memory mapped devices, etc) to 64 GB (not 4 GB).
The virtual address size is still 32 bit though (or 4 GB), and the OS
usually uses 1 GB or 2 GB for itself, which means applications can
only have up to 2 GB or 3 GB each. This means you can have a
computer with 64 GB of RAM running 32 applications where
each application uses 2 GB (without anything being 64 bit).

All of that is "architectural design" rather than what was actually
implemented though. Back when the 80386 was first designed, Intel
allowed for 32 bit physical addresses in the architectural design,
but (to save everyone money) they didn't implement full 32 bit
physical addressing. They knew no-one would need it (at the time)
so they only implemented 24 bit physical addressing, so that these
CPUs could only access 16 MB of RAM (and ROM, memory mapped devices,
etc).

For a 64 bit CPU, the physical address size is 52 bits and the virtual
address size is 64 bits, but these are the architectural limits which
aren't actually implemented in any 64 bit 80x86 CPU (and probably
won't be implemented for a very long time).

For example, Intel's first 64 bit CPU only implemented 40 bit virtual
addressing and 36 bit physical addressing. AMD's 'Hammer' supports
48 bit virtual addresses and 40 bit physical addresses.

Ironically, the main benefit of "64 bit 80x86" has nothing to do with
being (partially) 64 bit - the additional registers are far more
important and are responsible for any and all performance gains.


Cheers,

Brendan
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 10, 2005 9:04:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Brendan Trotter" <NOSPAMbtrotter@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:0mhqe.12347$F7.2187@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
> news:D 8aa85$4sq$1@nntp.webmaster.com...

>> Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
>> years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of
>> memory
>> in their systems.

> I think you're missing the difference between "physical addresses"
> and "virtual addresses", and the difference between architectural
> design and CPU implementation.

No, I'm not missing anything. What you said has nothing whatsoever to do
with what I said. It's *possible* to address an unlimited amount of memory
with an 8-bit CPU, but nobody does that if they don't have to. As soon as
the majority of computers are 64-bit capable, they won't have to, and so
they won't. In any event, the shortage of virtual addresses is the more
serious problem.

PAE is an ugly workaround. A lot of people specifically purchase the
maximum amount of memory their OS can handle without PAE because they want
to avoid it.

DS
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 10, 2005 10:28:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Brendan Trotter wrote:
> Ironically, the main benefit of "64 bit 80x86" has nothing to do with
> being (partially) 64 bit - the additional registers are far more
> important and are responsible for any and all performance gains.
It's true that the additional registers are the reason for a (small)
performance gain in most common software. However, it is NOT true that
this is resposnisble for "any and all" performance gains. There
definitely is some software out there which indeed can get quite a
massive performance boost from a 64-bit architecture (more than a factor
of 2). Encryption/Decryption software often belongs to that category.

Roland
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 10, 2005 10:40:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:k4Ppe.13533$Oq7.12222@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Were you around as a participant at that time?
>
>
> Yes. Do you remember how quickly the requirements on typical games went
> up? How one year most games required only a 386 and a year later they
> required a 486? How long was it after that before 133Mhz or better was
> needed?
>
> I just grabbed a random program off my shelf and the box requirements
> say "800Mhz Pentium 3 or faster". This would mean your CPU can be no more
> than 5 years old *if* it was the very fastest CPU purchased at the time of
> purchase! More realistically (few typical users buy the very fastest CPU
> available), it means your CPU can be no more than 3 years old.
>
>
>>The 16 bit systems were so limited by what you could use and address and
>>do that people jumped from 16 to 32 bits as soon as they could, and that
>>was "way too long" for DOS users, much less for the UNIX users of us.
>
>
> Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
> years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of memory
> in their systems.
>
>
>>It takes some level of dissatisfaction with what you have to make you
>>spend, "you" being personal or corporate. Maybe when that killer 64 bit
>>app comes out. When people are ready to buy a new system anyway they may
>>go 64 bit if the price is similar. It is at the bottom end and definitely
>>isn't at the server end.
>
>
> All new x86 CPUs except perhaps the very low end will be 64-bit capable
> in less than two years. How long do you think it will be before new PCs ship
> with a 64-bit operating system by default?
>
>
>>Save this post, if a killer app comes out which needs 64 bits in two
>>years, you can reply.
>
>
> There were ways to handle larger amounts of memory on 16-bit systems
> too. It is my bet that at least 15% of commodity software will require a
> 64-bit CPU and OS within five years.

Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address
your main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software,
but by any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying
moving from 32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for
replacement. Actually I would consider that over half of the computers
in desktop use are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with nothing more
than attrition driving it.
>
> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
> behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
> before. Ever.

I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there
hasn't been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for
a decade. The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough
and are not willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need.

If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered
with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests
that people don't feel the need.

I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement
rather than upgrade. I agree that most computers will include 64 bit
capability, but only because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are
unlikely to spend any money in 32 bit only products, when they need more
performance and lower power foar more.

I predict the big 64 bit software push will be driven by greed, I mean
marketing. When enough people have gotten 64 bit hardware, Microsoft
will suddenly release new versions of all apps, with new features, and
in 64 bit only. I predict they will offer *very* cheap upgrade from 32
bit versions, because they know they will make the money on Windows-64
o/s upgrades. But until most people have the hardware they won't push 64
bit only, because it locks them out of a majority of the market.

As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100
extra on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly,
that lets out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their
computer. If they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they
jump to 64 intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter,
are the games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea)


--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 11, 2005 4:51:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

David Schwartz,
Can you answer a few questions please?

1. Just so I know, what exactly is PAE? (yes, I know what it stands for)

2. What does it do?

3. Why is it a bad workaround?

4. How much RAM can Win 9x, Win NT, 2K and XP, Mac OS 8, 9 and X, and other *nix (assuming
most popular distros) handle without using this "PAE workaround"?

I'm asking these because there are quite a few things I'd never heard of in Brendan's post.

Cool_X

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Brendan Trotter" <NOSPAMbtrotter@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:0mhqe.12347$F7.2187@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>>"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
>>news:D 8aa85$4sq$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
>
>
>>>Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
>>>years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of
>>>memory
>>>in their systems.
>
>
>>I think you're missing the difference between "physical addresses"
>>and "virtual addresses", and the difference between architectural
>>design and CPU implementation.
>
>
> No, I'm not missing anything. What you said has nothing whatsoever to do
> with what I said. It's *possible* to address an unlimited amount of memory
> with an 8-bit CPU, but nobody does that if they don't have to. As soon as
> the majority of computers are 64-bit capable, they won't have to, and so
> they won't. In any event, the shortage of virtual addresses is the more
> serious problem.
>
> PAE is an ugly workaround. A lot of people specifically purchase the
> maximum amount of memory their OS can handle without PAE because they want
> to avoid it.
>
> DS
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 11, 2005 4:51:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Cool_X" <cool_x_usenetNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:GAqqe.1641154$Xk.437144@pd7tw3no...

> David Schwartz,
> Can you answer a few questions please?

Sure.

> 1. Just so I know, what exactly is PAE? (yes, I know what it stands for)

PAE allows an x86 processor to access more physical memory than it can
address with 32-bits. Specifically, it allows 36-bit *physical* address.

> 2. What does it do?

It basically adds an extra 4-bits in the page table mappings.

> 3. Why is it a bad workaround?

Because it doesn't increase the address space seen by a process. Because
it's a workaround rather than a real solution.

> 4. How much RAM can Win 9x, Win NT, 2K and XP, Mac OS 8, 9 and X, and
> other *nix (assuming most popular distros) handle without using this "PAE
> workaround"?
>
> I'm asking these because there are quite a few things I'd never heard of
> in Brendan's post.

Typically about 3Gb.

If you're looking for more specific information, use a search engine. It
would take many dozens of pages to answer your questions in detail because
they're not very specific.

DS
June 11, 2005 5:05:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Look here.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PA...




"Cool_X" <cool_x_usenetNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:GAqqe.1641154$Xk.437144@pd7tw3no...
> David Schwartz,
> Can you answer a few questions please?
>
> 1. Just so I know, what exactly is PAE? (yes, I know what it stands for)
>
> 2. What does it do?
>
> 3. Why is it a bad workaround?
>
> 4. How much RAM can Win 9x, Win NT, 2K and XP, Mac OS 8, 9 and X, and
> other *nix (assuming most popular distros) handle without using this "PAE
> workaround"?
>
> I'm asking these because there are quite a few things I'd never heard of
> in Brendan's post.
>
> Cool_X
>
> David Schwartz wrote:
>> "Brendan Trotter" <NOSPAMbtrotter@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:0mhqe.12347$F7.2187@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>
>>>"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
>>>news:D 8aa85$4sq$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
>>
>>
>>>>Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
>>>>years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of
>>>>memory
>>>>in their systems.
>>
>>
>>>I think you're missing the difference between "physical addresses"
>>>and "virtual addresses", and the difference between architectural
>>>design and CPU implementation.
>>
>>
>> No, I'm not missing anything. What you said has nothing whatsoever to
>> do with what I said. It's *possible* to address an unlimited amount of
>> memory with an 8-bit CPU, but nobody does that if they don't have to. As
>> soon as the majority of computers are 64-bit capable, they won't have to,
>> and so they won't. In any event, the shortage of virtual addresses is the
>> more serious problem.
>>
>> PAE is an ugly workaround. A lot of people specifically purchase the
>> maximum amount of memory their OS can handle without PAE because they
>> want to avoid it.
>>
>> DS
>>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 11, 2005 10:00:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

It does seem EVERYTIME there is a shift in the CPU for PCs, we have this
same discussion. Only servers need it. Only workstations need it.
Only hard core gamers need it. Only power users need it. Only...oh,
its required. I remember the shift from the 8088 to the 8086..who needs
16 "real" bits??? 8086 to 80286....20 bit memory access?? what do I
need with 16 MB of RAM??? then the 80386...who needs 32 bit registers,
we still run DOS....and so on....
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 11, 2005 4:25:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Hi,

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:D 8d9qp$75f$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
> PAE is an ugly workaround. A lot of people specifically purchase the
> maximum amount of memory their OS can handle without PAE because they want
> to avoid it.

I found PAE to be a fairly elegant extension, except for CR3 (the page
directory pointer table address) being restricted to 32 bits instead of
being extended to 36 bits like the rest of the paging system - a minor
hassle for an OS's memory manager considering that it needs to
differentiate between 20 bit physical address (for ISA DMA), 32 bit
physical addresses (for 32 bit PCI devices) and 36 bit physical addresses
anyway.

The only other relevant issue is the overhead of PAE paging structures,
which consumes roughly twice the amount of memory as an equivelent
32 bit paging system when operating on 4 KB pages, and roughly 4 times
the memory when operating with PSE (4 MB or 2 MB page sizes).

Please note that the lower level paging structures (page directories and
page tables) are identical for both 64 bit paging and PAE. To handle the
higher 32 bits of a 64 bit linear address the PDPT (page directory pointer
table) was extended from 32 entries to 512 entries, and a new top level
table was added (the PML4E). Considering that the only real differences
were needed to support 64 bit linear addressing, and that AMD left the
remainder unchanged, I'd say Intel's PAE "work-around" was quite good.

I can understand people trying to avoid installing 4 GB or more of RAM,
but I'd suggest this has more to do with things like 32 bit PCI devices
using bus mastering in conjunction with buggy/old device drivers rather
than PAE itself (ie. any mechanism that supported physical addresses
larger than 32 bits would've caused similar problems regardless of how
good it is). This wouldn't apply to a 64 bit OS as the device drivers
all need to be updated/rewritten (and hopefully tested on computers
with > 4 GB of memory).


Cheers,

Brendan
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 11, 2005 8:18:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Thanks name,
I wouldn't have had time to fix that on my own.

Cool_X

name wrote:
> Look here.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PA...
>
>
>
>
> "Cool_X" <cool_x_usenetNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:GAqqe.1641154$Xk.437144@pd7tw3no...
>
>>David Schwartz,
>>Can you answer a few questions please?
>>
>>1. Just so I know, what exactly is PAE? (yes, I know what it stands for)
>>
>>2. What does it do?
>>
>>3. Why is it a bad workaround?
>>
>>4. How much RAM can Win 9x, Win NT, 2K and XP, Mac OS 8, 9 and X, and
>>other *nix (assuming most popular distros) handle without using this "PAE
>>workaround"?
>>
>>I'm asking these because there are quite a few things I'd never heard of
>>in Brendan's post.
>>
>>Cool_X
>>
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>>"Brendan Trotter" <NOSPAMbtrotter@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>>>news:0mhqe.12347$F7.2187@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:D 8aa85$4sq$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
>>>>>years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of
>>>>>memory
>>>>>in their systems.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think you're missing the difference between "physical addresses"
>>>>and "virtual addresses", and the difference between architectural
>>>>design and CPU implementation.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I'm not missing anything. What you said has nothing whatsoever to
>>>do with what I said. It's *possible* to address an unlimited amount of
>>>memory with an 8-bit CPU, but nobody does that if they don't have to. As
>>>soon as the majority of computers are 64-bit capable, they won't have to,
>>>and so they won't. In any event, the shortage of virtual addresses is the
>>>more serious problem.
>>>
>>> PAE is an ugly workaround. A lot of people specifically purchase the
>>>maximum amount of memory their OS can handle without PAE because they
>>>want to avoid it.
>>>
>>> DS
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 12, 2005 5:42:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:U8lqe.7541$_A5.6466@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

> Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address your
> main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software, but by
> any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying moving from
> 32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for replacement.
> Actually I would consider that over half of the computers in desktop use
> are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with nothing more than attrition
> driving it.

Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without
specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that
happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with
significant benefits on 64-bit platforms.

>> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
>> behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
>> before. Ever.

> I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there hasn't
> been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a decade.
> The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and are not
> willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need.

I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of Macs
is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is that
64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register size. The
other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit limitation of
virtual memory size is significant.

As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades and
it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it -- people will
always want to do more and will always push their tools to the limit to
increase what they themselves can do.

> If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered
> with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests
> that people don't feel the need.

No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet spot.
That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck. The
same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software if you
make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no market is
left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only software in six
years almost inevitable.

> I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement
> rather than upgrade.

I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade.
Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things?

> I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only
> because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any money
> in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower power
> foar more.

Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users are
64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as 64-bit
only.

> I predict the big 64 bit software push will be driven by greed, I mean
> marketing. When enough people have gotten 64 bit hardware, Microsoft will
> suddenly release new versions of all apps, with new features, and in 64
> bit only. I predict they will offer *very* cheap upgrade from 32 bit
> versions, because they know they will make the money on Windows-64 o/s
> upgrades. But until most people have the hardware they won't push 64 bit
> only, because it locks them out of a majority of the market.

Whatever.

> As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra
> on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets
> out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer. If
> they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64
> intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the
> games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea)

This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large
percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software that
benefits from 64-bits.

DS
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 12, 2005 8:50:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

I meant, I wouldn't have had time to FIND that on my own.

Sorry for the typo that I didn't catch.

Cool_X

Cool_X wrote:
> Thanks name,
> I wouldn't have had time to fix that on my own.
>
> Cool_X
>
> name wrote:
>
>> Look here.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PA...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Cool_X" <cool_x_usenetNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:GAqqe.1641154$Xk.437144@pd7tw3no...
>>
>>> David Schwartz,
>>> Can you answer a few questions please?
>>>
>>> 1. Just so I know, what exactly is PAE? (yes, I know what it stands
>>> for)
>>>
>>> 2. What does it do?
>>>
>>> 3. Why is it a bad workaround?
>>>
>>> 4. How much RAM can Win 9x, Win NT, 2K and XP, Mac OS 8, 9 and X,
>>> and other *nix (assuming most popular distros) handle without using
>>> this "PAE workaround"?
>>>
>>> I'm asking these because there are quite a few things I'd never heard
>>> of in Brendan's post.
>>>
>>> Cool_X
>>>
>>> David Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Brendan Trotter" <NOSPAMbtrotter@gmail.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>>>> news:0mhqe.12347$F7.2187@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:D 8aa85$4sq$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
>>>>>> years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of
>>>>>> memory
>>>>>> in their systems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think you're missing the difference between "physical addresses"
>>>>> and "virtual addresses", and the difference between architectural
>>>>> design and CPU implementation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not missing anything. What you said has nothing
>>>> whatsoever to do with what I said. It's *possible* to address an
>>>> unlimited amount of memory with an 8-bit CPU, but nobody does that
>>>> if they don't have to. As soon as the majority of computers are
>>>> 64-bit capable, they won't have to, and so they won't. In any event,
>>>> the shortage of virtual addresses is the more serious problem.
>>>>
>>>> PAE is an ugly workaround. A lot of people specifically purchase
>>>> the maximum amount of memory their OS can handle without PAE because
>>>> they want to avoid it.
>>>>
>>>> DS
>>>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 13, 2005 1:08:28 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

In comp.sys.intel No One <aintnoway@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
> I remember the shift from the 8088 to the 8086..who needs 16 "real"
> bits???

There was no "switch from the 8088 to the 8086" - very few manufacturers
ever used the 8086.

> 8086 to 80286....20 bit memory access?? what do I need with 16 MB of
> RAM??? then the 80386...who needs 32 bit registers, we still run
> DOS....and so on....

And yet both of these were enough faster than the then-available models of
the prior generation processor that people pretty much jumped at buying them
if they could afford it.

The improvements with the x86 64-bit systems aren't quite so dramatic, but
they're quite significant at least on the server side: you'd be daft to buy
a pre-Nocona Xeon-based or an Athlon MP-based server, just because Nocona
and Opteron for reasons entirely unrelated to the 64-bit-ness offer very
siginficant performance advantages over their past generations.

It's not clear to me that the same is true for the Intel 64-bit Pentium 4s,
but it also costs basically nothing to get it.

Of course, you're right... memory needs increase pretty much at a pace with
the increase of memory capacities and the decrease in memory costs... we're
only a drop or two in price away from 2gb+ on the desktop being pretty
usual, at which point 64-bit processors get a lot more attractive.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 17, 2005 2:06:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:U8lqe.7541$_A5.6466@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address your
>>main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software, but by
>>any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying moving from
>>32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for replacement.
>>Actually I would consider that over half of the computers in desktop use
>>are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with nothing more than attrition
>>driving it.
>
>
> Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without
> specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that
> happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with
> significant benefits on 64-bit platforms.
>
>
>>> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
>>>behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
>>>before. Ever.
>
>
>>I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there hasn't
>>been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a decade.
>>The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and are not
>>willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need.
>
>
> I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of Macs
> is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is that
> 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register size. The
> other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit limitation of
> virtual memory size is significant.
>
> As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades and
> it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it -- people will
> always want to do more and will always push their tools to the limit to
> increase what they themselves can do.

Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger
engines, until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were
interested. Looks like people didn't buy more than they needed.

And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an
Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year
after three months or so.

>
>
>>If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered
>>with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests
>>that people don't feel the need.
>
>
> No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet spot.

Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more.

> That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck. The
> same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software if you
> make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no market is
> left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only software in six
> years almost inevitable.

Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and
maintain, so you don't see an unlimited number of features.
>
>
>>I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement
>>rather than upgrade.
>
>
> I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade.
> Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things?

If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the
MTBF, is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one.
That's replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated.

If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much
*neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has
been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade.

If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much
different rationale.

My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get
older. I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less
than the fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy
isn't deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the
lifetime of a computer.
>
>
>>I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only
>>because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any money
>>in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower power
>>foar more.
>
>
> Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users are
> 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as 64-bit
> only.

That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software
running on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so
what does that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications
are going to be out in 32 bits for years to come.
>
>

>>As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra
>>on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets
>>out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer. If
>>they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64
>>intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the
>>games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea)
>
>
> This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large
> percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software that
> benefits from 64-bits.

All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've
seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 17, 2005 5:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:vJmse.809$F11.175@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...

> David Schwartz wrote:

>> Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without
>> specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that
>> happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with
>> significant benefits on 64-bit platforms.

>>>> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
>>>> behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
>>>> before. Ever.

>>>I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there
>>>hasn't been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a
>>>decade. The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and
>>>are not willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need.

>> I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of
>> Macs is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is
>> that 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register
>> size. The other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit
>> limitation of virtual memory size is significant.

>> As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades
>> and it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it --
>> people will always want to do more and will always push their tools to
>> the limit to increase what they themselves can do.

> Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger engines,
> until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were interested. Looks
> like people didn't buy more than they needed.

This is not a response. The car market is too different from the
computer market for there to be any reason to expect one to do what the
other has done. I'm sure we're all familiar with the joke about what cars
would be like if the markets were similar.

> And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an
> Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year
> after three months or so.

There's just no comparison.

>>>If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered
>>>with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests
>>>that people don't feel the need.
>>
>>
>> No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet
>> spot.

> Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more.

No, they don't buy what they need. They buy the sweet spot. The sweet
spot is purely a price/performance issue and has nothing to do with what
anyone needs.

>> That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck.
>> The same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software
>> if you make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no
>> market is left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only
>> software in six years almost inevitable.

> Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and maintain,
> so you don't see an unlimited number of features.

Exactly. And as the sweet spot moves up, vendors will aim for higher and
higher targets regardless of what anyone needs.

>>>I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement
>>>rather than upgrade.

>> I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade.
>> Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things?

> If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the MTBF,
> is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one. That's
> replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated.

> If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much
> *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has
> been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade.

> If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much
> different rationale.

Or, quite commonly, you need another computer. So you buy the latest and
greatest, and give your computer to the next person down the line in your
family.

> My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get older.
> I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less than the
> fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy isn't
> deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the lifetime of
> a computer.

Three years is the typical lifetime. It's often driven by hard drive
failure. Most people have no backups, and once you have to reinstall
everything anyway, you might as well have better performance and more
current applications.

>>>I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only
>>>because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any
>>>money in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower
>>>power foar more.

>> Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users
>> are 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as
>> 64-bit only.

> That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software running
> on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so what does
> that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications are going to
> be out in 32 bits for years to come.

The difference is that it's not too terribly hard to make software that
runs on Win98 and WinXP and still gets all the key advantages of XP. Try to
use an iPod on 98.

>>>As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra
>>>on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets
>>>out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer.
>>>If they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64
>>>intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the
>>>games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea)

>> This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large
>> percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software
>> that benefits from 64-bits.

> All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've
> seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions.

Not a reasonable analogy for two reasons. First, the increase in 64-bit
machines has not correlated with a decrease in 32-bit machines. Second, I
never said there would be no new 32-bit software, just that there would be
more and more 64-bit only software -- so if the analogy were valid, it would
support my point

DS
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 17, 2005 7:47:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Bill,
I agree with most of your post, and you definitely seem to know what you're talking about, but
with all due respect, I disagree with two things you said:

1. "> If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much
> *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has
> been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade."

I object b/c I believe that "upgrade" means making any improvement to any existing unit, and
"replacement" means buying another separate unit.

So in your statement, I disagree with you saying upgrade" b/c you didn't make any improvement
to the old PC.

You also said:
"If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the MTBF, is getting
unreliable, making funny noises, then I get a new one. That's replacement."

IMHO, getting a new lawnmower and getting a new PC are both replacement, for the reasons stated
above.

2. You also said "All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've seen
just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions."

a. Assuming you're not talking about game console machines (like Gamecube), how can "all the
big game systems" have been "64 bit for a while"??? Dell sells a lot of big gaming systems
(eg. their Dimension XPS, which has become famous, AFAIK), and I don't think a single one of
them has had a 64-bit CPU, b/c Dell doesn't use AMD at all.

b. When you said "one or two (hundred) new title", you were meaning that as a small number, right?

c. And where did you get your info from to make the quote that I copied in the beginning of
this question?

Please let me know about this.

Cool_X



Bill Davidsen wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@deathstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
>> news:U8lqe.7541$_A5.6466@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>
>>> Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address
>>> your main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software,
>>> but by any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying
>>> moving from 32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for
>>> replacement. Actually I would consider that over half of the
>>> computers in desktop use are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with
>>> nothing more than attrition driving it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without
>> specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that
>> happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or
>> with significant benefits on 64-bit platforms.
>>
>>
>>>> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will
>>>> lag behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never
>>>> lagged before. Ever.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there
>>> hasn't been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit
>>> for a decade. The other is that there *is* a point when people have
>>> enough and are not willing to make an upgrade because they don't see
>>> the need.
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of
>> Macs is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One
>> is that 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as
>> register size. The other is that memory has now reached the point
>> where a 32-bit limitation of virtual memory size is significant.
>>
>> As for your second point, people have been arguing that for
>> decades and it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe
>> it -- people will always want to do more and will always push their
>> tools to the limit to increase what they themselves can do.
>
>
> Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger
> engines, until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were
> interested. Looks like people didn't buy more than they needed.
>
> And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an
> Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year
> after three months or so.
>
>>
>>
>>> If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't
>>> ordered with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly
>>> suggests that people don't feel the need.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet
>> spot.
>
>
> Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more.
>
>> That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their
>> buck. The same goes for software requirements -- you can make better
>> software if you make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so
>> high that no market is left. The combination of these two forces makes
>> 64-bit only software in six years almost inevitable.
>
>
> Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and
> maintain, so you don't see an unlimited number of features.
>
>>
>>
>>> I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by
>>> replacement rather than upgrade.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade.
>> Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things?
>
>
> If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the
> MTBF, is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one.
> That's replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated.
>
> If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much
> *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has
> been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade.
>
> If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much
> different rationale.
>
> My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get
> older. I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less
> than the fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy
> isn't deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the
> lifetime of a computer.
>
>>
>>
>>> I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only
>>> because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any
>>> money in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and
>>> lower power foar more.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users
>> are 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as
>> 64-bit only.
>
>
> That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software
> running on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so
> what does that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications
> are going to be out in 32 bits for years to come.
>
>>
>>
>
>>> As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100
>>> extra on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly,
>>> that lets out a fair percentage of people who do little else with
>>> their computer. If they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits,
>>> will they jump to 64 intesad of spending the money on more games? For
>>> that matter, are the games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question,
>>> I have no idea)
>>
>>
>>
>> This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large
>> percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop
>> software that benefits from 64-bits.
>
>
> All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've
> seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions.
>
      • 1
      • 2 / 2
!