Why are still not at 64 bits [was Can't figure out Firefox Plugin Requirement ]

[Tom Buskey]

On 2/14/07, Paul Lussier <p.lussier at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "Ben Scott" <dragonhawk at gmail.com> writes:
>
> >   I'm still running 32-bit everywhere, but from what I've read, it
> > seems like the recommended solution is to use a 32-bit environment for
> > web browsing.  It's generally possible to do this in an otherwise
> > 64-bit environment.  The details and difficult vary by distribution
> > and release.
> >
> >   I assume that, even with Flash memory leaks, a 64-bit address space
> > isn't needed for web browsing.  :)
>
> I find it mind-boggling that the Alpha came out what, 16-18 years ago
> with 64 bit technology and it *still* hasn't caught on in the
> mainstream.  Why is that?  Is there really that little market demand
> for 64 bits?  Sure, you only need 32 bits (or less) to run Word, but
> imagine how many more bugs MS could sell if they had double the amount
> of address-space!



32 bits is good enough.  And 90% of all systems run 32 bits.

Some of my users spec'd and ordered a PC.  They thought they needed 64 bits
so they got XP 64 bits.  None of the custom PCI-X cards had drivers of
course.  And std XP worked just fine.  Engineering by reading the marketing
materials :-(  Wish they had asked me 1st.

I've been running 64 bit Solaris on sparc for a number of years and have
never had an issue with 64/32 bit programs.   Everything just seems to
work.  I'm not sure how well the x86 64bits works yet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20070214/8adaee85/attachment.html