On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 19:25 +0100, Michael Watterson wrote:
> 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

Sorry, but you are wrong, in many ways.

While I'd agree with "most apps don't need 64bit", the fact is some do.

If you've ever done video work the 2GB of memory available to a process
on a 32bit machine is laughable. I routinely run tasks that require much
more then a 32bit machine could work with, and until 64bit options
became available it was always a case of having to do workarounds to get
the job done (work in small pieces, stich them together, hope everything
remains is in sync, grrr....).

Heck, even when I'm working with photos I routinely hit the 2GB barrier
(open enough photos and have enough layers and memory quickly gets
eaten).

At work it's been years since 2GB is enough, I routinely run tasks that
take dozens of GBs of memory to work.

64bit isn't the future, it's already here.

TTYL



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist