Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 16:06, Sid Boyce wrote:
Susemail wrote:
On Thursday 14 April 2005 04:02, James Knott wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
And now I get to do more shopping, this time for new hardware. I'm going to install 9.3 onto a new disk. I'm thinking of getting my first SATA drive (I've been a SCSI guy. I like the 10,000 RPM, Ultra160 drives--they're fast!).
Don't forget a 64 bit CPU!
Aside from the larger address space-what good is a 64 bit CPU?? Jerome
Strange, I can't remember anyone asking a similar question when CPU's went from 8 --> 16-bit or 16-bit --> 32-bit, perhaps it was too obvious back then. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Keen licensed Private Pilot Retired IBM Mainframes and Sun Servers Tech Support Specialist Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux for all Computing Tasks
No, it's just that it seems to me that 32 bit serves most users very well. 16 bit was limited and in most situations 64 bit seems like overkill to me. I don't think we'll be using 512 bit registers in a hundred years, for example. I could be wrong but I think 32bit to 64 bit is the sweet spot for most of our computing needs. Really I think 32bit is the sweet spot but I'll hedge my bet with 64 bit too.
Some users are already finding the 32 bit address space to be limiting.