Re: How much RAM can debian support?
>
>
>
>---- Original Message ----
>From: mark@allums.com
>To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>Subject: Re: How much RAM can debian support?
>Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:35:18 -0500
>
>>Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>>
>>>> Personally, I don't see a need to go 128 bit on a main cpu unless
>you
>>>> have a desire to count and enumerate every elementary particle in
>the
>>>> known universe, without a) running out of RAM, or b) spilling the
>>>> content into a multiregister add/adc pair. :)
>>>
>>> You don't. It seems others do:
>>>
>http://redmondmag.com/articles/2009/10/08/rumor-windows-8-will-be-128
>-bit.aspx
>>>
>>> The PR departments has strange hardware requirements.
>>
>>
>>128-bits may apply to something besides memory addresses. Although,
>it
>>is hard to conceive of a need for 128-bit precision in arithmetic
>ops.
>>
>>Some CPUs are internally actually VLIW[0] machines, even if they
>present
>>a standard architecture to the outside world.
>>
>>Microsoft may be doing infrastructure work that will not see the
>light
>>for 20 years or more, if ever. But, better to do it now than later.
>
>>The Y2K thing comes to mind here. Also, they may want to see
>Windows
>>running on serious supercomputing iron. (For PR reasons, of
>course.)
>>
>>
>>MArk Allums
>>
>>0. Very Long Instruction Word
>>
There's a well-known story about the Osborne computers. He had a
line of 8 bit computers which virtually captured the market. As the
16 bit processors came into being his customers "demanded" 16 bits
even though they had no idea what they were going to do with
it(them?). Osborne capitulated and said that his 16 bit machine was
"in development" (it wasn't far along at all). His customers stopped
buying his 8 bit machines, he couldn't deliver the 16 bit machines
and his company went out of business. So much for aggressive
marketing on CPU width.
Larry
>>
>>--
>>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.d
>ebian.org
>>
>>
Reply to: