conspiracy theory - Page 5

You're probably thinking of PAE (I believe it stands for Physical Addressing Extensions). It's possible to address >4GB of RAM on a 32 bit processor as this hack is found in the motherboard's northbridge. Unfortunately, there's a performance penalty for using this.

More registers are a good thing, no doubt. However, I believe in the x86-64 architecture that the registers seem to be mutually exclusive in the code, meaning 32 bit code can't use the 64 bit registers. Not sure if 64 bit code can use the 32 bit registers, but the instructions would have to be broken up some to fit in the registers.

You're right that longs and doubles can process much faster in a 64 bit register than a 32 bit. That's why the Itanium can run like a bat out of hell and there will be performance increases in x86-64 with longer numbers. However, in a pure 64 bit environment, if there's a 32 bit op, the computer has to pad the rest of the bits with 0's, so it's wasting resources. Over simplified, it's why the Itanium sucks so bad when it comes to 32 bit code ... too much overhead to run it.

Super

Have fun. I'm definitely glad to be done.

I think it's a combination of the two, I was just addressing the particular memory issue at the time.

The advantage x86-64 has is that it'll be easier to code for than processors like the Itanium. It's similar enough that in the best case, software can just be recompiled with a 64 bit compiler and you get the advantages. Typical case would probably be some minor revisions to work better, but definitely not the pain in the arse to code for something like the Itanium.

Super

Moore's law applies here as well, though covers more than just memory.

The 2GB limit was probably placed to prevent resource hogging (guess). However, I don't think there are many apps that we'll be using that would eat up 2GB of RAM. Video editing and the like maybe, but even when I encode video I don't even pass 1GB most times.

I do have one question, though: does the 2GB process limit exist in 64 bit versions of Linux and Windows for Itanium?

He'd have to be running something pretty intense, though, to hit 2GB in one process though. Again, Joe typically won't be running something that intense.

Server world has several options here. Multiple processor machines that can address 4GB of RAM each greatly increasee RAM available. They just keep track of their own memory. Downside there is that it's exclusive to each processor.

Those that really need 64 bit right now probably are already running Sun, HP, IBM, etc. boxes.

So the market is there, and with the availability of WinXP64 we will see it take off in the next year...[/quote]

Guess we'll have to wait and see. I won't be surprised if we see a 32 bit version of Longhorn though.

Super

Good question... its been some time since last I was up to date on the Linux kernel... but if I had to make a guess:

I would say in 64bit Linux the 2GB limit is still there. I base my opinion on the fact that it was always a software imposed limit, not the physical limit.
Thus, chances are 64bit Linux can address 16TB of physical memory, but only 2GB/process... I'm sure that will change tho...


Yes and no. Intense processes like DB server Joe won't run... but Joe might like games
As I have mentionned before, Unreal 3 will probably be able to take advantage of more than 1.5GB of RAM at runtime, and it is due for release in 2006...

Yup...
Also, consider the expense of multi-processor 64bit Sun/HP/IBM boxes... Opterons are way cheaper.

I would be... I mean in 2007 I would hope almost everything in 64bit... If M$ haven't got Longhorn 64bit-ified, then I think they will be losing out on the desktop OS market by then

I can buy that.

Now that's a memory hog.

Joe can also buy an Xbox and not have to worry about the bitness and have something cheap to game with.

Another wrench to that is memory prices. Memory isn't exactly cheap right now. Not terribly priced, but 2 gigs will have to cost less than $600.

Ok, I agree and disagree here.

x86-64 from either Intel or AMD doesn't fit into the niche of big iron. Sun/HP/IBM boxes can still kick the crap out of any hybrid processor. There's a reason Intel won't dare put x86 in that realm and they're sticking with Itanium (and even then they're a little guy in that arena). The people that need the kind of power those boxes can produce don't blink at the price like a smaller business would. I know my employer wouldn't. They don't care that it can't run 32 bit code either.

x86-64 would be needed as a replacement for the Xeon class servers and add a little extra umph and give benefits that 64 bitness in x86 can offer.

Lose it to whom? Not Linux. I like Linux and all, but it's definitely not there yet for the desktop user. It's come a long way, though.

I'd like to hope that it's wide spread, but ditching 16 to 32 only truly happened when XP was launched to the masses, and that was over 10 years (maybe more) after 32 bit processors were introduced. While NT and 2000 were true 32 bit OS's, they remained largely in the corporate sector. 32 bit is going to be AMD's mainstay until late next year, as Semprons/XP's will still outship Hammers until then.

I think we'll see more division in the market. We'll have the cheap systems with 32 bits that the light users can use, and the 64 bit machines that the more demanding user can use. I mean, how much faster do we need to go? I consider myself a power user, yet this is the first time I can think of in a long time that I actually feel no desire to upgrade my machine. Going to 3.6 GHz isn't going to give me much more than the 3.0GHz machine I have now. That's why I'm dabbling in laptops.

I think Ed at Overclockers has a point that he says that the industry's going to change. We're getting to the point of "good enough" that Moore's law might not be as true as people don't feel compelled to buy as much now.

Just some thoughts.

Super

Another issue with Moore's Law: we're starting to run out of space on the chips themselves. You can pack only so many transistors onto the die. Yes advances have been made and chip makers are "finding" more space, but all the extra transistors mean more heat. That means cooling issues.

But Super also alluded to another issue: the end user. We're getting to the point now where there are very few computer buyers that are buying a computer having never used one before. People know what they use a computer for, whether its gaming, web browsing, photo/video editing, or word processing. My father doesn't need the laptop I have, it'd be a waste of money for him. All he does is browse websites, use MS Office, and play Spider Solitaire (a few thousand games and counting). And the big difference between now and 3 years ago is that he knows that. He may not have the greatest knowledge of what's out there and what components do what, but he's got a basic idea. And that's enough for him to walk into a Best Buy or go to Dell.com and figure out what he needs.

So I think the question becomes, how many people will actually need a 64bit chip? Right now a lot of people buy it because "that's where the future is" and so forth. But we just don't know that.

You raise good points Super and Matt.

1st... although Win95 was not fully 32bit, the drivers were. So I would say it is 32bit enough for me, in that most of the hardest work was done
Also, it is important to note that Win95 ran on DOS, whereas WinNT4, Win2K, WinXP and Win2003 are all 32bit native no-dos OSes (btw, NT4 was the first 32bit OS from M$).

2nd: Although it sounds silly I think if M$'s stranglehold on the OS market cracks due to lacking tech, Mac OS-X and Linux will swallow a good portion of the PC market. Apple already have a fully functional version of OS-X for PC, they just don't sell it yet...

3rd: Although I agree with everything you said Matt... I think that you can sell ice to eskimos with good advertising... so instead of selling a faster computer, they make up BS like a "virus-safe" computer (read the NX bit).

4th: The ultimate end to Moore's law -> Quantum Computing

Very true. Intel, AMD and IBM have all said that they need to rethink how they're designing CPUs. 90nm fabrication finally brought all these to light. I think these guys were hoping it'd come later rather than sooner.

I use my dad to some extent as a barometer on these things. Reason being back in the day when computing was new, he bought practically every processor that Intel made, sometimes switching to Cyrix when they were a much more viable player. It wasn't uncommon to have a PC for only a few weeks before he'd sell it and get something. So I was fortunate that computers were his business.

So for years, it was upgrade upgrade upgrade every chance he could get. He was like this up to the P2.

After the P3 and Athlons shipped, he just slowed down ... gave up on the constant upgrades. Stuff was meeting his needs, and he was happy with what he had. He still has a 1GHz P3 at home and a 1GHz laptop. Granted, he's the netadmin for the hospital he works at and gets nice machines that way, but he's just now feeling the need to upgrade to a P4 at home.

Maybe Dad's just getting old. I don't know. However, I do see that as people get older, their needs change. I'm seeing more users doing the more intense stuff at work on their employers' dime rather than putting money into at home.

Sure, they're still buying P4's, Celerons and Athlons, but mainly because that's what's being sold at Circuit City, not because it's something they need. Plus I see a lot of recycling of the "old" systems down to the kids for them to screw up.

We power users are a minority. A VERY vocal one , but a minority nonetheless. Corporate response and the Joe Consumers are what the companies are going to play to, and we just hope these companies release the stuff we want. I see a lot of P4's not being replaced for a good while yet, both at home and at work.

Super

True dat.

I agree that Apple is MS's greatest threat. I've used OS X quite a bit at my last job and it's a fine OS. It's easy to use, it doesn't overwhelm the user, and it works well. I also like being able to drop down the the command line.

Also, you have apps available from MS and other vendors that are polished and refined. And you don't have to use someone's garage code to photo edit when you can just use Photoshop.

Apple's sitting on something good. They just need to release their strangle hold on their market. I think they'd do better in the longrun by doing that.

The NX bit will make computesr safer. I just wonder how long it takes someone to find an exploit. Nothing's foolproof, unfortunately.

I'll drink to that!

Super

i think linux is microsoft's biggest threat. it seems like in the business world linux has a serious foot hold, and is getting stronger each day. once linux gets a simpler gui, i think it might go even more mainstream.

I'm not knocking Linux as an OS as I like it a lot, but it'd definitely not noobie friendly, and the typical corporate user still says "huh?" when you mention any other PC OS other than MS. The GUI's fine, IMO. Choice in GUI is good, but it's also a hindrance. Also, they really need to do something about installing drivers and programs. Those need to be addressed and it needs to be quick and easy. I could see my wife coming in not knowing how to install an RPM or really crying when a program she needed to install would need to use MAKE files. Lindows seems to have helped this with a lot of "click to install" options that are noob friendly. Downside is that it requires a yearly subscripton that costs money.

I think Novell's in a position to really pimp Linux after buying SuSE and Xymian. They're the first large company in the US I've seen completely dumping Windows other than for product development. All employees will use Linux. The problem is that while Novell has a solid product lineup now (and some good future stuff coming out), they don't have the clout that they used to have back in the day. It's an obstacle, but I think it's one they can overcome.

In the meantime, Linux seems like it's stuck mostly as a server OS.

Apple (though most of us dislike their hardware ) has more of a stamp of crediblity. Everyone knows what an iPod is and I know of very few people that think they suck. If they see MacOS come out for the PC, I think it will have a credibility that can rock MS a lot harder than Linux can at this point.

Super