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

[Paul Lussier]

"Ken D'Ambrosio" <ken at jots.org> writes:

> 1) 32-bit is "good enough," since the single largest impact it'll have on
> most applications at this particular time is simply address space... and
> most people are content with <4 GB at this particular juncture.

My question is "Why has this remained so for so long?" There's this
theory of "Build it and they will come".  We see this in so many other
market segments, why not here?  For example, buy a new file server
today with 1TB of useable space, doubling the amount of space you
already have, and within 6 months to a year, it'll be full.

Simply *announce* you'll have phone on the market in 6 months or so
that doesn't completely suck and half the world is ready to ditch what
they have and switch to a different provider they probably have been
avoiding for all sorts of reasons up until now.

The Atari 2600 was "good enough", but we've obviously moved quite a
bit passed that :)

So, we have 64-bit technology, why don't we need it?  Why aren't we
coming up with applications to take advantage of it?  Why isn't the
marketing creating the demand?

> 2) <nit pick> Eh-hem.  It may be double the number of address bits, but it
> is woo more than double the address space. </nit pick>

<nit pick>
  Exactly how much more than double is a woo?
</nit pick>

<response>
 I'm well aware of that.  But I also mentioned MS in that sentence
 implying that they'd market such an "advance in technology" using an
 idea non-uber-geeks would think they comprehended :)
</response>

-- 
Seeya,
Paul
--
Key fingerprint = 1660 FECC 5D21 D286 F853  E808 BB07 9239 53F1 28EE

A: Yes.                                                               
> Q: Are you sure?                                                    
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.           
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?