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

[Thomas Charron]

On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

  That has nothing to do with sized bits I'm afraid.

> > 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?

  Nothing.  But processors can be made to do things faster when they
can deal with more data at a time (gross exageration).

>   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.

  It was tapped, but no one cared.  I was half hoping they'd simply
release Vista and say it's 64 bit, period.  Otherwise, no one really
cares.

>   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.

  And until there's someone forcing their choices upon them, the
general public will be utterly confused by the choices.  They won't
understand why they can't run A with B when Joe down the street does.
They don't give a crap about Bonobo vs KParts, they just want to know
why the app gstreamer doesn't seem to be able to sit in the KDE
taskbar like Joan down the street does on HER desktop.

  And there is quite literally NOTHING you cannot do in 32 bit that
you can in 64.

>   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?

  Name one killer app that killed the 386, or 486.

-- 
-- Thomas