Topic: Drop 32bit computing now! (Read 2587 times)

toasty0 · « **on:** January 11, 2009, 05:01:16 pm »

Why we should move to 64bit immediately...or by 2038, which ever gets here first.

Capt. Mike · « **Reply #1 on:** January 16, 2009, 05:36:39 am »

So...by Jan 2038, I will have just celebrated my 81st birthday, and we should be on Windows XXX by then

Actually, this brings to mind the test stations I calibrate that use ATLAS and MATE..can't handle the 2K problem, so all the calibration data sheets have to be dated, and signed off my me, the quality guy, and the user, just to prove I didn't do the calibration in 1981, before the station was even built.

Gotta love built in Gov't inefficiencies

Mike

marstone · « **Reply #2 on:** January 16, 2009, 01:30:03 pm »

if Y2K was a lesson for anyone, you should know it will not be fixed until the last moment. Because even if you change from 32 to 64 bit, you still have to code to use the larger size (as it would probably be backwards compatable and have to be accessed by name).

I mean, friend of mine and myself were talking about the Y2K problem back in 1983 or so, we figured it wouldn't be a problem because everyone had so long to fix it. We were wrong. So I guess this will not be worked on until zulu hour.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2009, 09:32:19 am »

Dude, medicare just allowed us to start using 32 bit tech a few weeks ago. Sorry, but the Feds will not be allowing us to move to 64 bit any time soon. No way, no how.

Panzergranate · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2009, 10:49:45 am »

There are quite a few 128 bit processors around, but due to the success / failure rate during the manufacturing process, they are expensive.

So far, the only commercially available computer that is 128 bit is the Gateway Super Amiga, which appeared in 1999 in response to NASA's pleas for something to replace the aging A4000 Amigas used for space image processing.

Needless to say, as reported in the computer press at the time, if you needed to ask how much the Super Amiga cost, then you obviously couldn't afford it.

You could always fork out a frightening amound and buy a 64 bit SUN computer.

What are the odds that by 2038 Microsoft Windows XX will run flawlessly and without problems??

marstone · « **Reply #5 on:** January 28, 2009, 12:35:54 pm »

Quote from: Clark Kent on January 28, 2009, 09:32:19 am

Dude, medicare just allowed us to start using 32 bit tech a few weeks ago. Sorry, but the Feds will not be allowing us to move to 64 bit any time soon. No way, no how.

Just a question, who is the "us" being referenced here? Not sure where medicare has control over computer tech? Please fill me in.

Panzergranate · « **Reply #6 on:** January 28, 2009, 12:46:24 pm »

Does having a 32 bit sledge hammer to replace a 16 bit nut cracker improve one's ability to crack open nuts??

As a qualified electronics design engineer, having a wider data bus or "bigger" processor doesn't always improve things. Moreover, it usually just adds more problems and things end up worst off with zero gains.

The same mentality occurs in the aircraft, automotive and motorcycle industries throughout their histories.

The cry for a "bigger engine" is the same from those who don't have a graps of the problems incured by doing just that.

In the case of the Italian FIAT G50 fighter, fitting a bigger engine resulted in the odd aircraft literally having the motro rip off of the front of the fighter on full throttle.

There aren't adequately cheap 64 bit support chips even if one tried to design a 64 bit processor domestic PC within an acceptable price range.

If you want a 64 bit home computer just fork out a few thousand buck and buy a SUN.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #7 on:** January 28, 2009, 06:24:49 pm »

Quote from: marstone on January 28, 2009, 12:35:54 pm

Quote from: Clark Kent on January 28, 2009, 09:32:19 am
Dude, medicare just allowed us to start using 32 bit tech a few weeks ago. Sorry, but the Feds will not be allowing us to move to 64 bit any time soon. No way, no how.

Just a question, who is the "us" being referenced here? Not sure where medicare has control over computer tech? Please fill me in.

Us in this case would be all medicare participating hospitals and hospital systems. For regulatory and reporting purposes Medicare gets to tell us how are computers operate. Medicare just allowed us to upgrade for the 2008 reporting cycle. On a related note, the state of MN has (int the last year) gotten into the business of requiring hospitals to report their capital investments on a yearly basis in case the hospitals, board of directors or those who donate for special projects decide they want the hospital to have something that the state doesn't want us to have (new MRI equipment, etc). They aren't at the stage where they tell us what we can and can't invest in yet, but they've sent a clear statement that they are watching and they had better approve.

Pestalence_XC · « **Reply #8 on:** January 28, 2009, 09:47:31 pm »

Quote from: Panzergranate on January 28, 2009, 12:46:24 pm

Does having a 32 bit sledge hammer to replace a 16 bit nut cracker improve one's ability to crack open nuts??

As a qualified electronics design engineer, having a wider data bus or "bigger" processor doesn't always improve things. Moreover, it usually just adds more problems and things end up worst off with zero gains.

The same mentality occurs in the aircraft, automotive and motorcycle industries throughout their histories.

The cry for a "bigger engine" is the same from those who don't have a graps of the problems incured by doing just that.

In the case of the Italian FIAT G50 fighter, fitting a bigger engine resulted in the odd aircraft literally having the motro rip off of the front of the fighter on full throttle.

There aren't adequately cheap 64 bit support chips even if one tried to design a 64 bit processor domestic PC within an acceptable price range.

If you want a 64 bit home computer just fork out a few thousand buck and buy a SUN.

Umm.. what planet do you live on.. Here in the US on Earth.. you can get a 64 bit Core 2 CPU for ~ $40 .. You can build an entire machine, Core 2, 64 bit, at 1333 Mhz FSB with 4 GB ram (800 Mhz) and a 2.66 Ghz CPU with a NVidia 8800 GTX with 768 Mb gDDR3 for under $800.. this includes a 19" HD Widescreen monitor (1440x900 res)

This basically describes my system that I built.. 100% 64 bit...

Instead of shooting off about price too expensive.. start researching prices..

I can build an XP machine (Given XP Pro x64) with 2 GB Ram and 64 bit CPU Core 2 (1.86 Ghz @ 800 Mhz FSB), without monitor for under $300.. and this is with an NVidia 8600 GT with 512 Mg gDDR3 vid card.

Clark Kent · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2009, 08:29:27 am »

Bonk, where do you get your parts from? I'd like to build a Cheap PC, but the cost prohibitive piece always seems to be Windows.

Panzergranate · « **Reply #10 on:** February 04, 2009, 10:49:52 am »

And Windows also throws in problems once you've installed it as well....

I've been building my own PCs since 1982....

I ran an Intel 80386SX16 upgrade card (remember those) on a Pheonix 8088 8-bit PC back in the 1980's, when everyone else had only just moved to XT 16-bit.

I built a 80286 25 Mhz. NEAT PC, which was twice as fast as my then top of the range Compaq Deskpro 80386SX16 (with 80387 co-processor and 4 Mb. RAM) back in 1989. Needless to say my Apple LC II was faster than both.

The thing is that whatever one builds, by the time its fininshed, it is out of date.

Usually the time period is around the time of purchase of parts in the store to the arrival back home to fit them.

I wouldn't say I've been around PCs a long long time but I can still remember Run Length Limited Hard Discs (Pauses while experienced PC folks of that era rush to the toilet to throw up, break into a cunvulsive fit, foam at the mouth, etc.)

By some coincidence, I've a few RLL HD controller cards here and a non-working RLL HD (the normal state after only 4 months of use total), if anyone wants well deserving range targets.

News: