[OT] End-user uses for x86-64 (was: Why are still not at 64 bits)

[Jim Kuzdrall]

On Saturday 17 February 2007 12:10, Ben Scott wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Jason Stephenson <jason at sigio.com> wrote:
> > If end users are defined as home users and office users, then 64
> > bits will never matter to them, just like 32 bits doesn't matter to
> > them today.
>
>   That's not really true.  16-bit machines are *very* limited.  There
> is not a whole lot you can do in 64 kilobytes of RAM (all you can
> directly address with a 16-bit address word).

    Not quite so.  As a programmer of embedded systems, I would point 
out that sales of microprocessors with address spaces of 16-bits (or 
less) exceed those of the larger machines by orders of magnitude.

    There are many things done by 16-bit address space computers that 
can't be done by the larger ones.  Like make cheap, low powered, small 
consumer products.

    Everybody has a place in the chorus.

    The reference to the automobile engine cylinder count in another 
post is a good one.  Four, six, and eight cylinder engines each 
continue to be commonly used.  The Lotus has a 12 or 16 cylinder 
engine, I know of no other.

    By analogy, does the 64-bit machine run on 8-cylinders or 
12-cylinders?

Jim Kuzdrall