On 2/17/07, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
machine. They don't understand why, but they know they can play digital music while writing a term paper on their new Dell, while their old Apple ][ or IBM-PC Model 5150 couldn't handle that.
That has nothing to do with sized bits I'm afraid.
> I'm not going to argue that 64 bits won't make a difference, just that > typical home and office users won't notice until it enables something > that no one has done before, or not done well. Right. Exactly. I'm wondering what those things might be. What will x86-64 let
people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes
do that the limitations of their x86-32 computer prevented them from doing?
Nothing. But processors can be made to do things faster when they can deal with more data at a time (gross exageration).
However, most of them are still running a 32-bit OS. Be it Windows or Linux or Mac OS, most of the installations are still 32-bit, even if the OS has a 64-bit variant available. In the 'doze world, this is largely because of the support and compatibility nightmares described previously. 64-bit Windows causes lots and lots of problems, and there's currently very little benefit to be had by people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes. So, from that standpoint, the 64-bit potential for the people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes market is still untapped.
It was tapped, but no one cared. I was half hoping they'd simply release Vista and say it's 64 bit, period. Otherwise, no one really cares.
Now, let's just say, hypothetically, that something materializes in the Linux world which needs a 64-bit system to work, and is also compelling to people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes. Maybe it's a really cool fully-immersive VR world (which will, of course, immediately be used for sexual purposes). If it's only available for Linux, then suddenly, people-doing-ordinary-tasks-like-reading-email-browsing-the-web-writing-letters-looking-at-pictures-and-calculating-their-taxes will have a *compelling reason* to check Linux out. And maybe, just maybe, they'll discover all the other benefits of FLOSS while they're at it.
And until there's someone forcing their choices upon them, the general public will be utterly confused by the choices. They won't understand why they can't run A with B when Joe down the street does. They don't give a crap about Bonobo vs KParts, they just want to know why the app gstreamer doesn't seem to be able to sit in the KDE taskbar like Joan down the street does on HER desktop. And there is quite literally NOTHING you cannot do in 32 bit that you can in 64.
That's a so-called "killer app". Entire industries have risen and fallen on such things in the past. As long as Windows sucks at x86-64 and Linux doesn't suck at x86-64, this question will remain very interesting to me. Am I the only one (aside from, perhaps, ESR) who thinks this way?
Name one killer app that killed the 386, or 486. -- -- Thomas _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
