[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:
> On 2/17/07, Thomas Charron <twaffle 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 inclined to disagree for the general case.  As long as it's a
> general purpose computer (and not a bunch of small
> application-specific computers), the limitations imposed by only being
> able to deal with 64 KB of data at a time are pretty real.

 .....  The only limitation to a 16 bit processor is being limited to
64 KB of data per page at a time.

> It may in
> theory be possible to do things in that small a space, by doing enough
> task switching or memory windowing or breaking the data down into tiny
> chunks or  multi-register arithmetic.  But it's so slow, cumbersome,
> and error-prone as to be a significant obstacle.

  Which is why different kinds of embedded systems will use multiple
smaller scale processors.  A UI doesn't need more then 16 bits for
most applications.

>   Sure, the i386 brought a number of other advantages to the table,
> chief among them a real MMU, but the address word size mattered, too,
> I think.

  Only in the fact that it was faster, and 'the next best thing' in an
environment where replacing a system tended to happen in a 2-3 year
cycle.

> >   And until there's someone forcing their choices upon them, the
> > general public will be utterly confused by the choices.
>   The general public tends to be utterly confused, period.

  True 'nuff.  :-)

> > 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.
>   Well, in theory, standards can address the issue of multiple
> choices.  There actually is a standard for that task bar tray icon
> stuff, which demonstrates that standards can work in practice, too.
> Fortunately, the FLOSS community has a lot of good reasons to like
> standards.

  And a good reason to completely disregard them because 'Gnome Sux,
KDE Rulez!  Nonono!  KDE can actually make a decent print icon, fug
Gnome!  Nono, wait!  Let's put the files in /etc/init.d!  NONONONO!
Someplace else!  Ok, fine, at least we can have apache running as
apache..  NONONO!  RUN it as httpd!

>   People in the 'doze world get pissed when X doesn't work with Y,
> too.  Sometimes, they get even more pissed when they find out that it
> doesn't work simply because Microsoft or Apple wanted to improve their
> bottom line.

  We have yet to see how that's going to play out, however.  But
generally, anything that doesn't work like 'Doze does, doesn't fly
very well.  There ARE some exceptions, but they are few.

> > And there is quite literally NOTHING you cannot do in 32 bit that
> > you can in 64.
>   Addressing more than 4 GB of RAM without memory
> windowing/segmentation comes to mind....

  Those are possibilities that address the issue.  64 bit is another.

> >>   That's a so-called "killer app".  Entire industries have risen and
> >> fallen on such things in the past.
> > Name one killer app that killed the 386, or 486.
>   It obviously hasn't happened, yet, and may never.  Duh.
>   VisiCalc, the first mass-market spreadsheet program, is widely
> credited for the commercial success of the Apple ][.

  Hehehe.  And Windowz is also sometimes credited for the success of
the Pentium.  Does that define it as a killer app?

>   With the IBM-PC, people point to Lotus 1-2-3 and Word Perfect.
> There was a time when, if you saw an IBM-PC-compatible in an office,
> you were nearly certain to see one of those two programs up on the
> screen.

  Or where they simply the defacto standard apps people used for
productivity, and had little to do with IBM-PC?  If they where
available for the Apple ][, would we all be using Mac's?

>   It looks like networked digital music may totally reshape the music
> "industry" (cartel).

  Naw.  People not wanting to pay them if they don't have to reshapes
them.  :-D  Too bad it's not working quite that way at an OS level.

>   Shall I go on?  :)

  By all means!  This is fun, but I suspect some list members may be
telling us to STFU soon enough.

-- 
-- Thomas