Egghead thought of the day

  • Thread starter Thread starter Puppy Breath
  • Start date Start date
P

Puppy Breath

32-bit machines provide for 4 GB of directly addressable memory. 64-bit
machines increase that to 17,179,869,184 GB. Why do we care and when will it
matter?
 
Puppy said:
32-bit machines provide for 4 GB of directly addressable memory. 64-bit
machines increase that to 17,179,869,184 GB. Why do we care and when
will it matter?
Click to expand...

4GB is not great when you're processing video, which quickly gobbles up
RAM. It matters already - manufacturers are trying to win control of the
living room.

Software that requires loading of complex models, e.g. speech
recognition is also a voracious RAM user. Throw all of these things
together and you get games, and other other highly interactive
contextual software.
 
The i86 32-bit architecture isn't limited to 4GB. This limitation is only a
design choice in the current generation of Windows. With segmented (as
opposed to flat) addressing mode (akin to the old 8086 style), it can
address up to 64TB (65,536GB) virtual memory. All it would require would be
a recompile with the appropriate parameters, and a couple of modifications
in the kernel's initialization module.
--
Pierre Szwarc
Paris, France
PGP key ID 0x75B5779B
------------------------------------------------
Multitasking: Reading in the bathroom !
------------------------------------------------

"Puppy Breath" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de (e-mail address removed)...
| 32-bit machines provide for 4 GB of directly addressable memory. 64-bit
| machines increase that to 17,179,869,184 GB. Why do we care and when will
it
| matter?
|
 
If you're a serious power user, and hungry for RAM, this will be very very
useful :o)
Especially in server environments - how do you think organisations like
Xerox and eBay run? :o)

--
Zack Whittaker
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
» Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--
 
bill gates claimed that 640k ram is more than enough for any application
ever developed.

That was one if his biggest goof ups... talk about visionaries... lol
 
You may not need a zillion terabytes, but it is how much you get with 64-bit
architecture, it is just math. 4gb is definitely not enough, and 64-bit is
the next logical progression.
 
That his often quoted and also denied by Bill Gates.
No one is able to cite a specific source for that quote from Bill Gates so
it is most likely a myth.
 
LOL he made a statement only recently saying that "I never said such a
thing".... but we all saw the video Bill ;o)

--
Zack Whittaker
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
» Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--
 
Zack said:
LOL he made a statement only recently saying that "I never said such a
thing".... but we all saw the video Bill ;o)
Click to expand...

From 1981? When not much of anything was committed to video?

I guess we'll leave it to you to dig up the source since no one else has
managed to in 25 years.
 
Hey Fat Bastard, I'm star struck having a celebrity in our midst! Play us a
tune on yer bagpipes.

What about this whole "virtual layer" between the actual file/folder
structure and the ability to find things quickly using Search boxes and such
in Vista. Don't you think that all that stuff must involve a lot of indexes,
and wouldn't it make sense to try to keep those in RAM for performance
reasons? Do you think there might be a basic "RAM is dirt cheap and
plentiful" philosophy driving that?
 
I would imagine why he would deny it...LOL

but even if he did say it, I can forgive him :-)


--
"What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think
things are."
- Epictetus 55-135

Jupiter Jones said:
That his often quoted and also denied by Bill Gates.
No one is able to cite a specific source for that quote from Bill Gates so
it is most likely a myth.
Click to expand...
 
Actually yeh, I've been looking back and the video I saw was a Channel 9
one, of him actually saying that what was said was codswallop - and yeh,
there's no actual evidence of it :o)

--
Zack Whittaker
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
» Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--
 
Zack said:
Actually yeh, I've been looking back and the video I saw was a Channel 9
one, of him actually saying that what was said was codswallop - and yeh,
there's no actual evidence of it :o)
Click to expand...

You're going to have to check facts faster and bite your tongue when you
finally start receiving Microsoft pay-checks. ;-)

Remember, that unlike Bill's supposed remarks, all yours are captured
forever on Google's archives ;-) ;-)
 
Well, there might be that sort of mindset going on, but as far as I know the
indexing is not done in RAM. A nice flat database on the hard disk is still
much much faster than actually searching the drive and that is how it is
done to the best of my knowledge.
 
Back
Top