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

[Ben Scott]

On 2/17/07, Jason Stephenson <jason at sigio.com> wrote:
> Typical end users as defined before don't really care about the
> differences. As long as they can do more or less what they want to do
> with the computer, they won't really notice the difference.

  I think you and I actually agree.  I'm not saying
people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes
actually care about memory models or address word size or any of that
crap.  They generally don't.  Ignoramuses might get into penis-length
contests because 64 is bigger than 32, but that's about it.

  However, people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes
do care about what they can do with their pee cee.  There are things
they can do on a 32-bit machine which they cannot do on a 16-bit
machine.  They don't understand why, but they know they can play
digital music while writing a term paper on their new Dell, while
their old Apple ][ or IBM-PC Model 5150 couldn't handle that.

> I'm not going to argue that 64 bits won't make a difference, just that
> typical home and office users won't notice until it enables something
> that no one has done before, or not done well.

  Right.  Exactly.  I'm wondering what those things might be.  What
will x86-64 let
people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes
do that the limitations of their x86-32 computer prevented them from
doing?

> Eventually, you won't be able to buy mainstream hardware with anything
> less than 64 bit CPUs, and from looking at the latest Dell PC Catalogs
> that I get, that time appears to be now or very soon.

  Indeed, that is very much happening.  It's practically impossible to
buy an IBM-PC-compatible these days that is not x86-64 capable.  Some
laptops are about the only exceptions.  So the hardware is there.

  However, most of them are still running a 32-bit OS.  Be it Windows
or Linux or Mac OS, most of the installations are still 32-bit, even
if the OS has a 64-bit variant available.  In the 'doze world, this is
largely because of the support and compatibility nightmares described
previously.  64-bit Windows causes lots and lots of problems, and
there's currently very little benefit to be had by
people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes.

  So, from that standpoint, the 64-bit potential for the
people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes
market is still untapped.

  Now, let's just say, hypothetically, that something materializes in
the Linux world which needs a 64-bit system to work, and is also
compelling to people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes.
 Maybe it's a really cool fully-immersive VR world (which will, of
course, immediately be used for sexual purposes).  If it's only
available for Linux, then suddenly,
people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes
 will have a *compelling reason* to check Linux out.  And maybe, just
maybe, they'll discover all the other benefits of FLOSS while they're
at it.

  That's a so-called "killer app".  Entire industries have risen and
fallen on such things in the past.  As long as Windows sucks at x86-64
and Linux doesn't suck at x86-64, this question will remain very
interesting to me.

  Am I the only one (aside from, perhaps, ESR) who thinks this way?

-- Ben