If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
In comp.sys.intel Cool_X wrote:
Can you please answer a few questions of mine? I'll try. 1. You said: " The improvements with the x86 64-bit systems aren't quite so dramatic, but they're quite significant at least on the server side: you'd be daft to buy a pre-Nocona Xeon-based or an Athlon MP-based server, just because Nocona and Opteron for reasons entirely unrelated to the 64-bit-ness offer very siginficant performance advantages over their past generations." You meant that Nocona and Opteron (I've never heard of Nocona, BTW, so thanks for telling me about it) offer "very significant performance advantages" that are "unrelated to the 64-bit-ness", on TOP of the advantages of 64-bit-ness, right? Yes, that's correct. Assuming there are any advantages to the 64-bit-ness for a given user, of course. In simpler terms, Nocona and Opteron are the best x86 server processors, right? They certainly are significantly better than their market predecessors (2P 533mhz Xeon and Athlon MP) with virtually no downsides (except possibly cost), even running 32-bit code in a 2gb-memory configuration. 2. You also said: " Of course, you're right... memory needs increase pretty much at a pace with the increase of memory capacities and the decrease in memory costs... we're only a drop or two in price away from 2gb+ on the desktop being pretty usual, at which point 64-bit processors get a lot more attractive." Are we talking about the RAM that vendors will ship STANDARD, or the RAM that buyers will actually UPGRADE to (from the standard amount)? Yes. Upgrades to above 2GB (and I really meant 2gb, not 2gb or greater there) will probably be more common than machines shipping with 2gb for a while, but eventually you'll see 2GB machines shipping. 4GB servers aren't that uncommon already, for that matter. 3. Last but definitely not least, how will your comment in question #2 affect the laptop world? Less or at least later than the desktop world, and just as it will be less/later in turn than the server/workstation world (HPC has already gone to 64-bit, for the most part.) Part of that's because laptop users have traditionally been among the least performance-conscious users - although that's changing - and part of that's because laptops tend to be more limited in their memory capacity (often have fewer memory slots, SO-DIMMs are often more expensive, and the max size DIMM is often smaller.) But eventually, at least the performance-critical segment of the market will want 64 bits on laptops. Whether the relentless desire to upgrade will continue to apply to the general office market - both laptops and desktops - will depend on how successful MS and other software vendors are in pushing people's needs beyond what they are now ... right now a low-ghz-range system with 256-512mb is still fine for most users. -- Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/ "This is not a humorous signature." |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
David Schwartz wrote:
"Bill Davidsen" wrote in message m... Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address your main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software, but by any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying moving from 32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for replacement. Actually I would consider that over half of the computers in desktop use are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with nothing more than attrition driving it. Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with significant benefits on 64-bit platforms. You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged before. Ever. I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there hasn't been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a decade. The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and are not willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need. I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of Macs is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is that 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register size. The other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit limitation of virtual memory size is significant. As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades and it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it -- people will always want to do more and will always push their tools to the limit to increase what they themselves can do. Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger engines, until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were interested. Looks like people didn't buy more than they needed. And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year after three months or so. If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests that people don't feel the need. No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet spot. Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more. That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck. The same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software if you make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no market is left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only software in six years almost inevitable. Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and maintain, so you don't see an unlimited number of features. I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement rather than upgrade. I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade. Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things? If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the MTBF, is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one. That's replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated. If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade. If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much different rationale. My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get older. I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less than the fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy isn't deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the lifetime of a computer. I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any money in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower power foar more. Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users are 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as 64-bit only. That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software running on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so what does that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications are going to be out in 32 bits for years to come. As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer. If they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64 intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea) This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software that benefits from 64-bits. All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions. -- bill davidsen SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Bill,
I agree with most of your post, and you definitely seem to know what you're talking about, but with all due respect, I disagree with two things you said: 1. " If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade." I object b/c I believe that "upgrade" means making any improvement to any existing unit, and "replacement" means buying another separate unit. So in your statement, I disagree with you saying upgrade" b/c you didn't make any improvement to the old PC. You also said: "If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the MTBF, is getting unreliable, making funny noises, then I get a new one. That's replacement." IMHO, getting a new lawnmower and getting a new PC are both replacement, for the reasons stated above. 2. You also said "All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions." a. Assuming you're not talking about game console machines (like Gamecube), how can "all the big game systems" have been "64 bit for a while"??? Dell sells a lot of big gaming systems (eg. their Dimension XPS, which has become famous, AFAIK), and I don't think a single one of them has had a 64-bit CPU, b/c Dell doesn't use AMD at all. b. When you said "one or two (hundred) new title", you were meaning that as a small number, right? c. And where did you get your info from to make the quote that I copied in the beginning of this question? Please let me know about this. Cool_X Bill Davidsen wrote: David Schwartz wrote: "Bill Davidsen" wrote in message m... Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address your main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software, but by any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying moving from 32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for replacement. Actually I would consider that over half of the computers in desktop use are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with nothing more than attrition driving it. Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with significant benefits on 64-bit platforms. You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged before. Ever. I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there hasn't been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a decade. The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and are not willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need. I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of Macs is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is that 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register size. The other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit limitation of virtual memory size is significant. As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades and it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it -- people will always want to do more and will always push their tools to the limit to increase what they themselves can do. Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger engines, until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were interested. Looks like people didn't buy more than they needed. And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year after three months or so. If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests that people don't feel the need. No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet spot. Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more. That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck. The same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software if you make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no market is left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only software in six years almost inevitable. Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and maintain, so you don't see an unlimited number of features. I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement rather than upgrade. I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade. Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things? If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the MTBF, is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one. That's replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated. If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade. If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much different rationale. My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get older. I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less than the fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy isn't deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the lifetime of a computer. I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any money in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower power foar more. Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users are 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as 64-bit only. That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software running on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so what does that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications are going to be out in 32 bits for years to come. As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer. If they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64 intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea) This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software that benefits from 64-bits. All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Davidsen" wrote in message . .. David Schwartz wrote: Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with significant benefits on 64-bit platforms. You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged before. Ever. I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there hasn't been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a decade. The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and are not willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need. I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of Macs is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is that 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register size. The other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit limitation of virtual memory size is significant. As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades and it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it -- people will always want to do more and will always push their tools to the limit to increase what they themselves can do. Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger engines, until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were interested. Looks like people didn't buy more than they needed. This is not a response. The car market is too different from the computer market for there to be any reason to expect one to do what the other has done. I'm sure we're all familiar with the joke about what cars would be like if the markets were similar. And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year after three months or so. There's just no comparison. If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests that people don't feel the need. No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet spot. Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more. No, they don't buy what they need. They buy the sweet spot. The sweet spot is purely a price/performance issue and has nothing to do with what anyone needs. That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck. The same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software if you make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no market is left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only software in six years almost inevitable. Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and maintain, so you don't see an unlimited number of features. Exactly. And as the sweet spot moves up, vendors will aim for higher and higher targets regardless of what anyone needs. I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement rather than upgrade. I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade. Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things? If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the MTBF, is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one. That's replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated. If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade. If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much different rationale. Or, quite commonly, you need another computer. So you buy the latest and greatest, and give your computer to the next person down the line in your family. My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get older. I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less than the fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy isn't deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the lifetime of a computer. Three years is the typical lifetime. It's often driven by hard drive failure. Most people have no backups, and once you have to reinstall everything anyway, you might as well have better performance and more current applications. I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any money in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower power foar more. Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users are 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as 64-bit only. That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software running on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so what does that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications are going to be out in 32 bits for years to come. The difference is that it's not too terribly hard to make software that runs on Win98 and WinXP and still gets all the key advantages of XP. Try to use an iPod on 98. As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer. If they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64 intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea) This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software that benefits from 64-bits. All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions. Not a reasonable analogy for two reasons. First, the increase in 64-bit machines has not correlated with a decrease in 32-bit machines. Second, I never said there would be no new 32-bit software, just that there would be more and more 64-bit only software -- so if the analogy were valid, it would support my point DS |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter? | aether | Asus Motherboards | 65 | June 17th 05 09:56 PM |
matter of aesthetics latitude d800 | Bill | Dell Computers | 0 | December 10th 03 03:38 AM |
Does Video Memory Size Matter? | Carol Fieldus | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | October 31st 03 11:00 AM |
Does choice of PCI-slot matter with Windows 2000 installed in ACPI mode? | Bernd Bubis | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | September 24th 03 02:20 AM |
Hercules or Sapphire 9800 non-pro? Does it matter? | i d o r u | Ati Videocards | 4 | September 6th 03 04:54 PM |