Isaac Marino Bavaresco wrote: > > > That's a normal consequence of the technological enhancement. > > First, we had 8-bit computers that could address 64k bytes (usually), > then 16-bit ones that could address 1M or 16M. > When we moved to real 32-bit (386DX, 68020), the (theoretical) limit was > 4G bytes, which is until now enough for most people. > > The 64-bit machines are pushing this limit to values that nobody knows > when it will be reached (or needed to be broken). > > The next step (no pun intended) would be necessary only when the > computers become intelligent and we all are extinct :) > > However most applications see no benefit from a 64 bit CPU, and for some applications 64bit x64 architecture CPU is poorer. It's now more about marketing and style than any need for performance for most consumers. Only a few poorly written games and a poorly written OS, for consumer workstation/laptop needs more than 512M Also 16bits vs 32 bits vs 64bit can be quite independent of address space. Some 8 bit PIC can address 2Mbyte rather than 64K of 8085. NT4.0 Enterprise edition was able to use 4GByte on servers. Most consumer 64bit CPU laptops/desktops can only have 3Gbyte RAM in use. Most of the last 1Gbyte isn't actually addressable. In reality we have had prettier (in some minds) GUIs since 1993 but little genuine advance in OS. (NT3.1 and 1st Linux Kernel 1993, Linux & OS X are essentially 1976 OS designs and NT (currently Windows 7) has its genesis in VMS and OS/2. Don't fall for the Hype. I'm happy though that prices have fallen dramatically in the last 8 years for PC hardware. Though it's harder to get a portable LCD suitable for PDFs, DTP and programming than 4 years ago. The Manufacturers seem convinced we all use laptops instead of proper TV sets to watch Video (in the dark with no lights reflect off the hyper shiny screens) instead of creation and editing of information. In the high street store a few laptops were massive 1920x1080 (not even 1200 line anymore) and most 1366x768 or less widescreen. For a portable workstation or laptop for work rather than video consumption, that's a step backward from 1600 x 1200. If they even tilted to give portrat, it would be slightly something. If I was going to have about 17" to 18" LCD, I'd expect by now to get 2 x A4 pages or 1 x A3 page in good enough resolution to read it. I know in USA you use slightly fatter & shorter "Letter Size", but still, a 17" 1366x 768 is not ideal. Perhaps since I started with ICL George and punched cards, and then Apple IIe with UCSD-p-system and 8" drives up till 2000 / 2003 was great advances. I now simply don't see any value to spending money on iCore7 quad 64bit with 4G RAM and Windows 7. It will not let me do anything better than my 8 year old 1600x1200 15.4" ish 1.8GHz XP laptop, My 64bit workstation doesn't. In fact a lot of my applications won't run on Win7. If I want to play more advanced games I'd buy an Xbox 360 & PS3 -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist