64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter?

I meant, I wouldn't have had time to FIND that on my own.

Sorry for the typo that I didn't catch.

Cool_X

Cool_X wrote:
> Thanks name,
> I wouldn't have had time to fix that on my own.
>
> Cool_X
>
> name wrote:
>
>> Look here.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/pae_os.mspx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Cool_X" <> wrote in message
>> news:GAqqe.1641154$Xk.437144@pd7tw3no...
>>
>>> David Schwartz,
>>> Can you answer a few questions please?
>>>
>>> 1. Just so I know, what exactly is PAE? (yes, I know what it stands
>>> for)
>>>
>>> 2. What does it do?
>>>
>>> 3. Why is it a bad workaround?
>>>
>>> 4. How much RAM can Win 9x, Win NT, 2K and XP, Mac OS 8, 9 and X,
>>> and other *nix (assuming most popular distros) handle without using
>>> this "PAE workaround"?
>>>
>>> I'm asking these because there are quite a few things I'd never heard
>>> of in Brendan's post.
>>>
>>> Cool_X
>>>
>>> David Schwartz wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Brendan Trotter" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:0mhqe.12347$...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "David Schwartz" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d8aa85$4sq$...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and that will be the case with 32-bit systems in about three
>>>>>> years as people want to put more than 2Gb (and then more than 4Gb) of
>>>>>> memory
>>>>>> in their systems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think you're missing the difference between "physical addresses"
>>>>> and "virtual addresses", and the difference between architectural
>>>>> design and CPU implementation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm not missing anything. What you said has nothing
>>>> whatsoever to do with what I said. It's *possible* to address an
>>>> unlimited amount of memory with an 8-bit CPU, but nobody does that
>>>> if they don't have to. As soon as the majority of computers are
>>>> 64-bit capable, they won't have to, and so they won't. In any event,
>>>> the shortage of virtual addresses is the more serious problem.
>>>>
>>>> PAE is an ugly workaround. A lot of people specifically purchase
>>>> the maximum amount of memory their OS can handle without PAE because
>>>> they want to avoid it.
>>>>
>>>> DS
>>>>
>>
>>

"Bill Davidsen" <> wrote in message
news:U8lqe.7541$_ m...

> Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address your
> main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software, but by
> any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying moving from
> 32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for replacement.
> Actually I would consider that over half of the computers in desktop use
> are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with nothing more than attrition
> driving it.

Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without
specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that
happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with
significant benefits on 64-bit platforms.

>> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
>> behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
>> before. Ever.

> I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there hasn't
> been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a decade.
> The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and are not
> willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need.

I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of Macs
is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is that
64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register size. The
other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit limitation of
virtual memory size is significant.

As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades and
it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it -- people will
always want to do more and will always push their tools to the limit to
increase what they themselves can do.

> If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered
> with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests
> that people don't feel the need.

No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet spot.
That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck. The
same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software if you
make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no market is
left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only software in six
years almost inevitable.

> I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement
> rather than upgrade.

I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade.
Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things?

> I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only
> because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any money
> in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower power
> foar more.

Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users are
64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as 64-bit
only.

> I predict the big 64 bit software push will be driven by greed, I mean
> marketing. When enough people have gotten 64 bit hardware, Microsoft will
> suddenly release new versions of all apps, with new features, and in 64
> bit only. I predict they will offer *very* cheap upgrade from 32 bit
> versions, because they know they will make the money on Windows-64 o/s
> upgrades. But until most people have the hardware they won't push 64 bit
> only, because it locks them out of a majority of the market.

Whatever.

> As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra
> on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets
> out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer. If
> they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64
> intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the
> games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea)

This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large
percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software that
benefits from 64-bits.

DS

In comp.sys.intel No One <> wrote:
> I remember the shift from the 8088 to the 8086..who needs 16 "real"
> bits???

There was no "switch from the 8088 to the 8086" - very few manufacturers
ever used the 8086.

> 8086 to 80286....20 bit memory access?? what do I need with 16 MB of
> RAM??? then the 80386...who needs 32 bit registers, we still run
> DOS....and so on....

And yet both of these were enough faster than the then-available models of
the prior generation processor that people pretty much jumped at buying them
if they could afford it.

The improvements with the x86 64-bit systems aren't quite so dramatic, but
they're quite significant at least on the server side: you'd be daft to buy
a pre-Nocona Xeon-based or an Athlon MP-based server, just because Nocona
and Opteron for reasons entirely unrelated to the 64-bit-ness offer very
siginficant performance advantages over their past generations.

It's not clear to me that the same is true for the Intel 64-bit Pentium 4s,
but it also costs basically nothing to get it.

Of course, you're right... memory needs increase pretty much at a pace with
the increase of memory capacities and the decrease in memory costs... we're
only a drop or two in price away from 2gb+ on the desktop being pretty
usual, at which point 64-bit processors get a lot more attractive.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."

Nate,
Can you please answer a few questions of mine?

1. You said:
" The improvements with the x86 64-bit systems aren't quite so dramatic, but
> they're quite significant at least on the server side: you'd be daft to buy
> a pre-Nocona Xeon-based or an Athlon MP-based server, just because Nocona
> and Opteron for reasons entirely unrelated to the 64-bit-ness offer very
> siginficant performance advantages over their past generations."

You meant that Nocona and Opteron (I've never heard of Nocona, BTW, so thanks for telling me
about it) offer "very significant performance advantages" that are "unrelated to the
64-bit-ness", on TOP of the advantages of 64-bit-ness, right? In simpler terms, Nocona and
Opteron are the best x86 server processors, right?

2. You also said:
"> Of course, you're right... memory needs increase pretty much at a pace with
> the increase of memory capacities and the decrease in memory costs... we're
> only a drop or two in price away from 2gb+ on the desktop being pretty
> usual, at which point 64-bit processors get a lot more attractive."

Are we talking about the RAM that vendors will ship STANDARD, or the RAM that buyers will
actually UPGRADE to (from the standard amount)?

3. Last but definitely not least, how will your comment in question #2 affect the laptop
world? Either by replying to my post in this thread (in comp.hardware), or by e-mail (very
much preferred, although you can do the former as well, of course!), can you give me all of
your thoughts on how everything I quoted you on in this reply will affect the laptop world?

Like I said before, if it isn't too much trouble, can you please send me an e-mail with your
response to this. That would be VERY HIGHLY appreciated.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Cool_X


Nate Edel wrote:
> In comp.sys.intel No One <> wrote:
>
>>I remember the shift from the 8088 to the 8086..who needs 16 "real"
>>bits???
>
>
> There was no "switch from the 8088 to the 8086" - very few manufacturers
> ever used the 8086.
>
>
>>8086 to 80286....20 bit memory access?? what do I need with 16 MB of
>>RAM??? then the 80386...who needs 32 bit registers, we still run
>>DOS....and so on....
>
>
> And yet both of these were enough faster than the then-available models of
> the prior generation processor that people pretty much jumped at buying them
> if they could afford it.
>
> The improvements with the x86 64-bit systems aren't quite so dramatic, but
> they're quite significant at least on the server side: you'd be daft to buy
> a pre-Nocona Xeon-based or an Athlon MP-based server, just because Nocona
> and Opteron for reasons entirely unrelated to the 64-bit-ness offer very
> siginficant performance advantages over their past generations.
>
> It's not clear to me that the same is true for the Intel 64-bit Pentium 4s,
> but it also costs basically nothing to get it.
>
> Of course, you're right... memory needs increase pretty much at a pace with
> the increase of memory capacities and the decrease in memory costs... we're
> only a drop or two in price away from 2gb+ on the desktop being pretty
> usual, at which point 64-bit processors get a lot more attractive.
>

In comp.sys.intel Cool_X <> wrote:
> Can you please answer a few questions of mine?

I'll try.

> 1. You said:
> > " The improvements with the x86 64-bit systems aren't quite so
> > dramatic, but they're quite significant at least on the server side:
> > you'd be daft to buy a pre-Nocona Xeon-based or an Athlon MP-based
> > server, just because Nocona and Opteron for reasons entirely unrelated
> > to the 64-bit-ness offer very siginficant performance advantages over
> > their past generations."
>
> You meant that Nocona and Opteron (I've never heard of Nocona, BTW, so
> thanks for telling me about it) offer "very significant performance
> advantages" that are "unrelated to the 64-bit-ness", on TOP of the
> advantages of 64-bit-ness, right?

Yes, that's correct. Assuming there are any advantages to the 64-bit-ness
for a given user, of course.

> In simpler terms, Nocona and Opteron are the best x86 server processors,
> right?

They certainly are significantly better than their market predecessors (2P
533mhz Xeon and Athlon MP) with virtually no downsides (except possibly
cost), even running 32-bit code in a < 2gb-memory configuration.

> 2. You also said:
> "> Of course, you're right... memory needs increase pretty much at a pace
> > with the increase of memory capacities and the decrease in memory
> > costs... we're only a drop or two in price away from 2gb+ on the
> > desktop being pretty usual, at which point 64-bit processors get a lot
> > more attractive."
>
> Are we talking about the RAM that vendors will ship STANDARD, or the RAM
> that buyers will actually UPGRADE to (from the standard amount)?

Yes.

Upgrades to above 2GB (and I really meant > 2gb, not 2gb or greater there)
will probably be more common than machines shipping with > 2gb for a while,
but eventually you'll see > 2GB machines shipping.

4GB servers aren't that uncommon already, for that matter.

> 3. Last but definitely not least, how will your comment in question #2
> affect the laptop world?

Less or at least later than the desktop world, and just as it will be
less/later in turn than the server/workstation world (HPC has already gone
to 64-bit, for the most part.)

Part of that's because laptop users have traditionally been among the least
performance-conscious users - although that's changing - and part of that's
because laptops tend to be more limited in their memory capacity (often have
fewer memory slots, SO-DIMMs are often more expensive, and the max size DIMM
is often smaller.)

But eventually, at least the performance-critical segment of the market will
want 64 bits on laptops. Whether the relentless desire to upgrade will
continue to apply to the general office market - both laptops and desktops -
will depend on how successful MS and other software vendors are in pushing
people's needs beyond what they are now ... right now a low-ghz-range system
with 256-512mb is still fine for most users.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/

"This is not a humorous signature."

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Bill Davidsen" <> wrote in message
> news:U8lqe.7541$_ m...
>
>
>>Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address your
>>main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software, but by
>>any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying moving from
>>32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for replacement.
>>Actually I would consider that over half of the computers in desktop use
>>are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with nothing more than attrition
>>driving it.
>
>
> Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without
> specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that
> happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with
> significant benefits on 64-bit platforms.
>
>
>>> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
>>>behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
>>>before. Ever.
>
>
>>I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there hasn't
>>been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a decade.
>>The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and are not
>>willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need.
>
>
> I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of Macs
> is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is that
> 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register size. The
> other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit limitation of
> virtual memory size is significant.
>
> As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades and
> it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it -- people will
> always want to do more and will always push their tools to the limit to
> increase what they themselves can do.

Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger
engines, until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were
interested. Looks like people didn't buy more than they needed.

And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an
Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year
after three months or so.

>
>
>>If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered
>>with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests
>>that people don't feel the need.
>
>
> No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet spot.

Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more.

> That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck. The
> same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software if you
> make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no market is
> left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only software in six
> years almost inevitable.

Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and
maintain, so you don't see an unlimited number of features.
>
>
>>I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement
>>rather than upgrade.
>
>
> I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade.
> Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things?

If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the
MTBF, is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one.
That's replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated.

If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much
*neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has
been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade.

If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much
different rationale.

My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get
older. I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less
than the fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy
isn't deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the
lifetime of a computer.
>
>
>>I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only
>>because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any money
>>in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower power
>>foar more.
>
>
> Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users are
> 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as 64-bit
> only.

That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software
running on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so
what does that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications
are going to be out in 32 bits for years to come.
>
>

>>As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra
>>on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets
>>out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer. If
>>they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64
>>intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the
>>games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea)
>
>
> This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large
> percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software that
> benefits from 64-bits.

All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've
seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions.

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

Bill,
I agree with most of your post, and you definitely seem to know what you're talking about, but
with all due respect, I disagree with two things you said:

1. "> If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much
> *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has
> been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade."

I object b/c I believe that "upgrade" means making any improvement to any existing unit, and
"replacement" means buying another separate unit.

So in your statement, I disagree with you saying upgrade" b/c you didn't make any improvement
to the old PC.

You also said:
"If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the MTBF, is getting
unreliable, making funny noises, then I get a new one. That's replacement."

IMHO, getting a new lawnmower and getting a new PC are both replacement, for the reasons stated
above.

2. You also said "All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've seen
just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions."

a. Assuming you're not talking about game console machines (like Gamecube), how can "all the
big game systems" have been "64 bit for a while"??? Dell sells a lot of big gaming systems
(eg. their Dimension XPS, which has become famous, AFAIK), and I don't think a single one of
them has had a 64-bit CPU, b/c Dell doesn't use AMD at all.

b. When you said "one or two (hundred) new title", you were meaning that as a small number, right?

c. And where did you get your info from to make the quote that I copied in the beginning of
this question?

Please let me know about this.

Cool_X



Bill Davidsen wrote:
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> "Bill Davidsen" <> wrote in message
>> news:U8lqe.7541$_ m...
>>
>>
>>> Oh there were, but they were painful to use in most cases. To address
>>> your main point, it depends on your definition of commodity software,
>>> but by any definition I don't see that as a "killer app" justifying
>>> moving from 32 to 64 bit hardware before the old system is due for
>>> replacement. Actually I would consider that over half of the
>>> computers in desktop use are going to be replaced in 6-7 years, with
>>> nothing more than attrition driving it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without
>> specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that
>> happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or
>> with significant benefits on 64-bit platforms.
>>
>>
>>>> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will
>>>> lag behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never
>>>> lagged before. Ever.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there
>>> hasn't been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit
>>> for a decade. The other is that there *is* a point when people have
>>> enough and are not willing to make an upgrade because they don't see
>>> the need.
>>
>>
>>
>> I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of
>> Macs is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One
>> is that 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as
>> register size. The other is that memory has now reached the point
>> where a 32-bit limitation of virtual memory size is significant.
>>
>> As for your second point, people have been arguing that for
>> decades and it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe
>> it -- people will always want to do more and will always push their
>> tools to the limit to increase what they themselves can do.
>
>
> Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger
> engines, until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were
> interested. Looks like people didn't buy more than they needed.
>
> And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an
> Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year
> after three months or so.
>
>>
>>
>>> If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't
>>> ordered with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly
>>> suggests that people don't feel the need.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet
>> spot.
>
>
> Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more.
>
>> That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their
>> buck. The same goes for software requirements -- you can make better
>> software if you make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so
>> high that no market is left. The combination of these two forces makes
>> 64-bit only software in six years almost inevitable.
>
>
> Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and
> maintain, so you don't see an unlimited number of features.
>
>>
>>
>>> I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by
>>> replacement rather than upgrade.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade.
>> Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things?
>
>
> If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the
> MTBF, is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one.
> That's replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated.
>
> If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much
> *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has
> been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade.
>
> If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much
> different rationale.
>
> My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get
> older. I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less
> than the fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy
> isn't deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the
> lifetime of a computer.
>
>>
>>
>>> I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only
>>> because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any
>>> money in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and
>>> lower power foar more.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users
>> are 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as
>> 64-bit only.
>
>
> That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software
> running on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so
> what does that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications
> are going to be out in 32 bits for years to come.
>
>>
>>
>
>>> As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100
>>> extra on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly,
>>> that lets out a fair percentage of people who do little else with
>>> their computer. If they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits,
>>> will they jump to 64 intesad of spending the money on more games? For
>>> that matter, are the games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question,
>>> I have no idea)
>>
>>
>>
>> This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large
>> percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop
>> software that benefits from 64-bits.
>
>
> All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've
> seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions.
>

"Bill Davidsen" <> wrote in message
news:vJmse.809$. ..

> David Schwartz wrote:

>> Exactly. People will wind up with 64-bit capable hardware without
>> specifically intending to have it just through attritition. Once that
>> happens, software will start to be released either as 64-bit only or with
>> significant benefits on 64-bit platforms.

>>>> You are essentially predicting that software requirements will lag
>>>> behind hardware availability by an amount that they have never lagged
>>>> before. Ever.

>>>I am. Based on two different justifications. The best is that there
>>>hasn't been a 64 bit killer app for the Mac, and that's been 64 bit for a
>>>decade. The other is that there *is* a point when people have enough and
>>>are not willing to make an upgrade because they don't see the need.

>> I disagree with both points. On the first point, the 64-bitness of
>> Macs is not comparable to the 64-bitness of PCs for two reasons. One is
>> that 64-bits on PCs is accompanied by other changes such as register
>> size. The other is that memory has now reached the point where a 32-bit
>> limitation of virtual memory size is significant.

>> As for your second point, people have been arguing that for decades
>> and it has never been proven right. I personally don't believe it --
>> people will always want to do more and will always push their tools to
>> the limit to increase what they themselves can do.

> Let's see, in the 60's car manufacturers built larger and larger engines,
> until around 427-450 cubic inches very few people were interested. Looks
> like people didn't buy more than they needed.

This is not a response. The car market is too different from the
computer market for there to be any reason to expect one to do what the
other has done. I'm sure we're all familiar with the joke about what cars
would be like if the markets were similar.

> And Ford decided that there was a market for an SUV sized between an
> Expedition and a school bus. They stopped making it for the model year
> after three months or so.

There's just no comparison.

>>>If you can get access to sales info, most 32 bit systems aren't ordered
>>>with max memory, largest disk, or fastest CPU. That certainly suggests
>>>that people don't feel the need.
>>
>>
>> No, that's not the reason. It's because people buy for the sweet
>> spot.

> Exactly! They buy what they need and a little more.

No, they don't buy what they need. They buy the sweet spot. The sweet
spot is purely a price/performance issue and has nothing to do with what
anyone needs.

>> That is, the buy equipment that gives them the most bang for their buck.
>> The same goes for software requirements -- you can make better software
>> if you make the requirements greater, but you can't aim so high that no
>> market is left. The combination of these two forces makes 64-bit only
>> software in six years almost inevitable.

> Vendors aim for the sweet spot too, features cost to develop and maintain,
> so you don't see an unlimited number of features.

Exactly. And as the sweet spot moves up, vendors will aim for higher and
higher targets regardless of what anyone needs.

>>>I'm still confident that 64 bit hardware will come driven by replacement
>>>rather than upgrade.

>> I don't understand the difference between replacement and upgrade.
>> Perhaps you could explain. Aren't these the same things?

> If my computer (car, lawn mower, stove, tires, whatever) is near the MTBF,
> is getting unreliable, making funny noices, then I get a new one. That's
> replacement. And in business that means the cost is depreciated.

> If I see a new computer (car, spouse, camera) which is just so much
> *neater* than what I have, then I get a new one before the old one has
> been fully utilized. Or depreciated. That's upgrade.

> If there's a feature I actually need, it's still upgrade, but has a much
> different rationale.

Or, quite commonly, you need another computer. So you buy the latest and
greatest, and give your computer to the next person down the line in your
family.

> My bet is that most personal computers will be replaced as they get older.
> I find it really unlikely that any company which provides less than the
> fastest CPU and largest memory will be doing an upgrade, sexy isn't
> deductable, and few applications go from small to huge in the lifetime of
> a computer.

Three years is the typical lifetime. It's often driven by hard drive
failure. Most people have no backups, and once you have to reinstall
everything anyway, you might as well have better performance and more
current applications.

>>>I agree that most computers will include 64 bit capability, but only
>>>because it will be standard. Intel and AMD are unlikely to spend any
>>>money in 32 bit only products, when they need more performance and lower
>>>power foar more.

>> Well that's the point. As soon as the vast majority of power users
>> are 64-bit capable, power user software will start to be released as
>> 64-bit only.

> That's what I said, eventually. As soon as the market for software running
> on Win98 dries up no one will make it... but they do today, so what does
> that tell you about residual market. Mass market applications are going to
> be out in 32 bits for years to come.

The difference is that it's not too terribly hard to make software that
runs on Win98 and WinXP and still gets all the key advantages of XP. Try to
use an iPod on 98.

>>>As for gamers? I define a gamer as someone who spends at least $100 extra
>>>on a computer for memory, faster CPU, or detter display. Oddly, that lets
>>>out a fair percentage of people who do little else with their computer.
>>>If they didn't spend money on hardware at 32 bits, will they jump to 64
>>>intesad of spending the money on more games? For that matter, are the
>>>games on the 64 bit Mac better? (real question, I have no idea)

>> This brings up the other flaw in your Mac example. Until a large
>> percentage of systems are 64-bit, there's no reason to develop software
>> that benefits from 64-bits.

> All the big game systems have been 64 bit for a while, seems to me I've
> seen just one or two (hundred) new title for the older 32 bit versions.

Not a reasonable analogy for two reasons. First, the increase in 64-bit
machines has not correlated with a decrease in 32-bit machines. Second, I
never said there would be no new 32-bit software, just that there would be
more and more 64-bit only software -- so if the analogy were valid, it would
support my point

DS