Herbert Graf wrote:
> 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
>
>
>   
you must have extremely large photos and very poor applications. I do 
use a 1G RAM Desktop PC for most video edit now, but even with 512M my 
laptop is fine. I've never run out of RAM editing photos in last 10 years.

Some applications need 64bit. Video Editing and photo editing certainly 
don't.


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