New
#70
I presume yer talking bout the SSD drives. And yes, they are the friggin bomb! I got my x25-M G2 this week and it's like night and day, I want to marry the drive.
I presume yer talking bout the SSD drives. And yes, they are the friggin bomb! I got my x25-M G2 this week and it's like night and day, I want to marry the drive.
You people keep saying like o my god, we barely moved to 64 bit yet, but hey, this is going to happen in windows 8 and 9. So we still have some time.
And i think that its already time for a 256 bit version :O
I don't see how this is going to happen as there are no mainstream CPUs that work on 128-bit integers and addresses. Sure there are 128-bit vector registers for SIMD instructions, but to be truly 128-bit they need data/address buses of that size.
That other "processors" discussion just now reminded me of my intention to respond to this post :)
I was actually referring to RAM. By the early 2000s, the biggest 32-bit Windows servers running multiple instances of SQLServer (and employing its AWE capabilities) had started to run into the 64GB PAE limit. From memory, at one point Win2K3 had a bit of a problem in that it wouldn't even boot with 64GB present (there wasn't enough VM space for the sysPTEs necessary to describe all that RAM!), but once that was rectified the enterprise discovered that they could limp along with 32-bit for a while.
Even nowadays it's not at all uncommon to find monstrous 32-bit+PAE servers with 32GB or 64GB of RAM, quietly fulfilling some app server function where the app is either not yet certified for use on a 64-bit system, or the company is too cheap to purchase the updated version, and they're planning to run what they've got into the ground.
Thanks. I'll have to do some light reading :)
Ah, John C. Dvorak. Even as a kid I used to leaf through my dad's "PC Mags" (those were the days!), and wonder why this man who seemed to know so much was sometimes controversial.
In this instance, I think he got it completely wrong. The Itanium didn't kill the computer industry - the Itanium was itself killed by the AMD64, which he doesn't even mention.
In it's finest hour, AMD realised that the Itanium was too advanced and too disconnected from the status quo, to the point where Intel had left itself open for a competitor to undermine their effort with an architecture that was arguably inferior, but cheaper and backwards-compatible. Enter the AMD64 :)
I find the parallels between Intel's Itanium experience and what happened to IBM when they introduced the MCA to be very interesting. Both were superior products - which nobody wanted because they were all too heavily invested in the current "obsolete" standard.
A minimum of 10 to 15 years before wee see anything like this. Only 2% of the present applications have been coded to used 64bit. It will be 5 to 7 more years before our existing software fully embraces 64 bit, muck less 128.
128 bit is just a gleam in the eye of Microsofts marketing department.
OK I'm just putting my i7 in the bin now...
99 percent are still using 32 bit? I'm sorry but I'm just not even close to believing that one because it's simply untrue.
I did hear that Windows 8 will be 64 bit only which is much easier to believe.
The Itanium throws a long, dark shadow. Everyone wanted out from the x86 architecture/instruction set. They wanted a brave, pure, free new world, where a ground-up fusion of hard- and software would shine like that weird baby-sun thing in TellyTubbyLand. Then they realized they would have to replace all their software and soon, all over the land, the executions began. Mind you, I have a friend who worked with Itaniums and he said they have two modes: Warp Speed and All Stop. Absolutely nothing in between. when you're on the bus, you stay on the bus.