64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter?

"DD" writes:

Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing
64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy
operating system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway
there.

While I don't necessarilly disagree with you, now that Intel and AMD
are producing commodity 64-bit processors (I don't classify Itanium
as commodity), this may (probably will) lower the cost of getting a
64-bit system.

In the past 64-bit platforms could only be had as a premium. They
were generally engineered as servers or "workstations" (e.g.,
UltraSPARC, Alpha). In the near future any old "PC" will be 64-bit.

It's not so much a case of what will happen when 64-bit is available
-- it's been around for a while. Rather it's a case of: will anything
interesting happen when everyone and their dog has a 64-bit machine?

--
David Magda dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

David Magda wrote:
"DD" writes:


Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing
64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy
operating system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway
there.


While I don't necessarilly disagree with you, now that Intel and AMD
are producing commodity 64-bit processors (I don't classify Itanium
as commodity), this may (probably will) lower the cost of getting a
64-bit system.

In the past 64-bit platforms could only be had as a premium. They
were generally engineered as servers or "workstations" (e.g.,
UltraSPARC, Alpha). In the near future any old "PC" will be 64-bit.

It's not so much a case of what will happen when 64-bit is available
-- it's been around for a while. Rather it's a case of: will anything
interesting happen when everyone and their dog has a 64-bit machine?

Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
than server apps, benefit from 64bit?

--
bill davidsen )
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

In article , Bill Davidsen wrote:

Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
than server apps, benefit from 64bit?

The HPC community already benefits as well. Our sims run significantly
faster in 64bit mode than in 32bit, and several *couldn't* be run
on a 32bit system due to the limited memory space.

--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University

Bill Davidsen wrote:
Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
than server apps, benefit from 64bit?


I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
from 64-bit.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:

Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
than server apps, benefit from 64bit?



I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
from 64-bit.

Yousuf Khan

Right answer. Using a machine that cannot address its own installed memory
from an application is sad, and takes us back to 1987, when 386 was used
to run DOS.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:

Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody
other than server apps, benefit from 64bit?


I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
from 64-bit.

I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT
used as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think
of the majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will
any of these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business
the huge databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual
on a GB machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need
that will get people to upgrade?

There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=32 bits, everyone
hit the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for
most of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add
memory, even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.

And even on servers it's hard to find a benefit for many applications.
The bottleneck is i/o, and even if the hardware could do it I wouldn't
spend the money to put 10TB databases in memory. I can go to 16GB with
32 bits, and the individual processes are only a few MB, so address
space per process isn't an issue.

I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.

--
bill davidsen )
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

"Bill Davidsen" wrote in message
. ..

I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT used
as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think of the
majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will any of
these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business the huge
databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual on a GB
machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need that will get
people to upgrade?

The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks of
address space for sparse data.

If you don't think 90% of computers are servers or game machines, what
do you think they're doing? I think a lot more than 10% of general-purpose
computers have games as a significant application.

There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=32 bits, everyone hit
the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for most
of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add memory,
even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.

The need will be the things that are easier to do on 64-bit platforms,
and so over time they will only be available on them. But you are right that
the 32-bit limit is not being hit hard, so the change will not be nearly as
swift as the change from 16-bit to 32-bit was, and that change wasn't all
that swift.

I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.

Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow at
the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit pretty soon
now, in about three years if memory serves me.

It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
processors than don't.

DS

David Schwartz wrote:
"Bill Davidsen" wrote in message
. ..


I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT used
as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think of the
majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will any of
these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business the huge
databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual on a GB
machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need that will get
people to upgrade?


The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks of
address space for sparse data.

Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that? I keep
hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but we
have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
have now. Where's the killer app?

My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users
will not need the address space, because the common things are bounded
by the human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web
page, graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in
the USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet
of huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better
served by a database.


If you don't think 90% of computers are servers or game machines, what
do you think they're doing? I think a lot more than 10% of general-purpose
computers have games as a significant application.


There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=32 bits, everyone hit
the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for most
of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add memory,
even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.


The need will be the things that are easier to do on 64-bit platforms,
and so over time they will only be available on them. But you are right that
the 32-bit limit is not being hit hard, so the change will not be nearly as
swift as the change from 16-bit to 32-bit was, and that change wasn't all
that swift.


I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.


Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow at
the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit pretty soon
now, in about three years if memory serves me.

It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
processors than don't.

New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.

--
bill davidsen )
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

"Bill Davidsen" wrote in message
. ..

David Schwartz wrote:

The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks
of address space for sparse data.

Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?

All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app that
only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.

I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
have now. Where's the killer app?

It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having lots
of address space and using it.

My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the USA
the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of huge
size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served by a
database.

How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the next
high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?

Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow
at the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit
pretty soon now, in about three years if memory serves me.

It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
processors than don't.

New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.

I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will still
only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit market is
really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher percentage of the
target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more likely that 64-bit only
software will be released.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
64-bit mode.

DS

"David Schwartz" wrote in message
...

"Bill Davidsen" wrote in message
. ..

David Schwartz wrote:

The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit
platforms that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For
example, you can 'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that
reserves large chunks of address space for sparse data.

Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?

All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app that
only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.

I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
have now. Where's the killer app?

It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having lots
of address space and using it.

My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the
USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of
huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served
by a database.

How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the next
high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?

Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to
grow at the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit
pretty soon now, in about three years if memory serves me.

It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
processors than don't.

New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.

I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will
still only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit
market is really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher
percentage of the target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more likely
that 64-bit only software will be released.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
64-bit mode.

DS



I think the only reason I would need to upgrade to 64bit in the future
will be software written for it. My guess anyways, I can already do
pretty much all I want on a 3.5 P4E with 2 gigs ram, not weather mapping
here or doing HD encoding yet but DVD encoding works great.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----