32 bit: is it worth it?

[NMFTM]

I've had my computer for about a year now and since almost all new computers are now 32 bit, that's what I have. But I'm still running my 16bit OS. I've heard a lot of people clamoring about how great 32 bit OS's are. But I'm not sure if I really need to upgrade.

I only use my computer for basic tasks like word processing and some light gaming. Besides, I've heard that 32 bit isn't as stable as 16 and it's only really only beneficial if you have more than 16MB of memory. Unless your doing really intensive tasks, who needs that much?

[TheBuzzSaw]

I think you're confusing 16-bit and 32-bit with today's 32-bit and 64-bit.

... either that or you just stepped out of a time machine from the past...

[Phrea]

I think you're confusing 16-bit and 32-bit with today's 32-bit and 64-bit.

I think he pulled your leg. ;)

[chappajar]

You heard right. 32 bit is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Stay away from it at all costs.
16 bit is faster, more stable and more compatible.
32 bit is a waste of time energy and resources, and you won't notice any improvement over 16 bit.
To be honest I'm a still a little suspicious of 16 bit, 8 bit was fine...

[shazbut]

Funnily enough, most people seem to associate the bit-ness purely with addressable memory. If that was the case an 8 bit architecture would only give a 256-byte memory space, and 16 bit would give you 64k.

[ceelo]

i c wut u did thar.

[RiceMonster]

16 bit? Why not just stick with 8 bit?

[TheBuzzSaw]

Computers are just flat out overrated. Screw the bitrate.

[Bachstelze]

Funnily enough, most people seem to associate the bit-ness purely with addressable memory. If that was the case an 8 bit architecture would only give a 1-byte memory space, and 16 bit would give you 64k.

Er, what? Last I checked, 2^8 did not equal 1. It's not high either, mind, but a bit higner than 1.

[jerenept]

2^8 bits=1024 bits=1kilobit (kb)

[3rdalbum]

I've had my computer for about a year now and since almost all new computers are now 32 bit, that's what I have. But I'm still running my 16bit OS. I've heard a lot of people clamoring about how great 32 bit OS's are. But I'm not sure if I really need to upgrade.

I only use my computer for basic tasks like word processing and some light gaming. Besides, I've heard that 32 bit isn't as stable as 16 and it's only really only beneficial if you have more than 16MB of memory. Unless your doing really intensive tasks, who needs that much?

But on Linux, all existing open-source software can be recompiled for 32-bit, so there are no software compatibility problems. Unlike on Windows, where programmers have assumed that their software will only run on 16-bit computers, so they can't just be recompiled.

[Apv507]

I prefer my abacus. It's a little slow, but it only crashes when you knock it over or shake it.

[shazbut]

Er, what? Last I checked, 2^8 did not equal 1. It's not high either, mind, but a bit higner than 1.

oops. that'll teach me to try and be clever :oops:

[chappajar]

I prefer my abacus. It's a little slow, but it only crashes when you knock it over or shake it.

Technofile! What's wrong with my stones and holes in the sand?

[3rdalbum]

Technofile! What's wrong with my stones and holes in the sand?

Stones and holes? Sand? You land-based trendies! Being restricted to the sea should be good enough for anybody!

[chappajar]

Stones and holes? Sand? You land-based trendies! Being restricted to the sea should be good enough for anybody!

LOLd

[Giant Speck]

You young whippersnappers and your "doing things"...

[NovaAesa]

2^8 bits=1024 bits=1kilobit (kb)

2^8 != 1024

2^8 == 256

2^10 == 1024

[lisati]

While we're at it, why not go back to 4-bit systems?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004

[Ebere]

Dear NotMyFirstTM,

Do you have a copy of DOS2.2 that I can borrow ?

Do you have a BB that I can access with my 18 baud modem and download it ?

[bananas4370]

Dear NotMyFirstTM,

Do you have a copy of DOS2.2 that I can borrow ?

Do you have a BB that I can access with my 18 baud modem and download it ?

Oh how that takes me back :)

[Flying caveman]

mmm. that makes me hungry for noodles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auhHl5-6VdY

[Paqman]

it's only really only beneficial if you have more than 16MB of memory.

What kind of bloated system would use that much memory!!!

[3rdalbum]

While we're at it, why not go back to 4-bit systems?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_4004

On 15 November 2006, the 35th anniversary of the 4004, Intel celebrated by releasing the chip's schematics, mask works, and user manual.[5]

Cool! It's an open-source CPU.

[chappajar]

What kind of bloated system would use that much memory!!!

Yes, a smack for every KB over 640!

[lisati]

Dear NotMyFirstTM,

Do you have a copy of DOS2.2 that I can borrow ?

Do you have a BB that I can access with my 18 baud modem and download it ?
I think I have a backup of PC-DOS 2.01 somewhere on 5.25" disk.

[Ebere]

I think I have a backup of PC-DOS 2.01 somewhere on 5.25" disk.

Seems like only yesterday...

[lisati]

Seems like only yesterday...

Sighs.... I must fire up my Commodore 128s one of these days, I have a CP/M disk for them but no CP/M applications.....

[bhaverkamp]

I suspect you have no CP/M disks either. All my imsai disks died long ago...

[lisati]

I suspect you have no CP/M disks either. All my imsai disks died long ago...

That's within the bounds of possibility: I haven't taken great pains to look after the 5.25" disks I have lurking around (both MS-DOS & C128)

[praveesh]

The data transfer rate between cpu and memory is proportional to the word length (no of bits)

[lethalfang]

32-bit OS may not be useful to you.
However, with a maximum memory of 4 GB, it will be enough to store the entire internet. It is the ultimate technology solution that will render papers obsolete.

[fatality_uk]

You youngsters, VALVES I TELL YOU, VALVES!!!

[philinux]

I think the OP is sitting back having a laugh at all the replies to this.

):P

[98cwitr]

My LAMP server still has vacuum tubes :popcorn:

300MB+ on start up...let me go back to DOS lmfao

[tuddy666]

16 bit? Why not just stick with 8 bit?

If we're going that way, 4 bit is where it's at, kiddo!

...Srsly, though. I think this is a mistake, troll, or somebody who's been in a coma for the past... two decades or so. Probably the former.

[insane_alien]

...Srsly, though. I think this is a mistake, troll, or somebody who's been in a coma for the past... two decades or so. Probably the former.

or, that ever elusive type of post, humourous.

[chappajar]

or, that ever elusive type of post, humourous.

This thread was inspired at least in part by: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=9277114#post9277114

[Doctor Mike]

Seems like the OP has attracted the attention of several mods... wonder why?

[chessnerd]

You guys are ridiculous. 8-bit? Seriously?!

32-bit is the way of the future. Sure, there are some incompatibilities with 32-bit now, but soon software makers will start writing their code exclusively in 32-bit and 16-bit will be useless.

At one time 16 MB was more than enough for any computer, but that day is gone now. Sure, you can still do great things on a 16-bit OS running on a computer with even as little as 4 MB, but the ability to use even as much as 4 GB (that's 1000 times more than 4 MB) is astounding! No one will ever need that much RAM, it's true, but with 32-bit you can move up to 32 MB and 64 MB, which seems very realistic nowadays.

I was once like you guys: I thought 16-bit was great and didn't see why we needed to go through the growing pains to get to 32-bit. But it truly is the future of computing...

[doas777]

I gave up on bits a long time ago. now it's all ternary syntax.

"Its ok Bender. There's no such thing as 2." --Phillip J. Fry

my last 16-bit native PC died in 1999. barely even seen one since.

[cascade9]

Thanks to my pentium pro being so horribly slow on 16bit, I have to use a 32bit OS. Its just a pity that most of the applications are 16bit....maybe in a few years 32bit applications will be almost as common as 16bit.

[Ebere]

or, that ever elusive type of post, humourous.

Aye !

And a good chuckle it has been.

:)

[lethalfang]

You guys are ridiculous. 8-bit? Seriously?!

32-bit is the way of the future. Sure, there are some incompatibilities with 32-bit now, but soon software makers will start writing their code exclusively in 32-bit and 16-bit will be useless.

At one time 16 MB was more than enough for any computer, but that day is gone now. Sure, you can still do great things on a 16-bit OS running on a computer with even as little as 4 MB, but the ability to use even as much as 4 GB (that's 1000 times more than 4 MB) is astounding! No one will ever need that much RAM, it's true, but with 32-bit you can move up to 32 MB and 64 MB, which seems very realistic nowadays.

I was once like you guys: I thought 16-bit was great and didn't see why we needed to go through the growing pains to get to 32-bit. But it truly is the future of computing...

Moving to 32-bit computing is just an Intel conspiracy to make you buy more hardwares.
I mean, please! If this direction is to follow, they'll tell you in 10 years that 4 GB is not enough and you need 64-bit computing.
When is it going to end!
32-bit computing = BetaMAX, doomed to fail!

[98cwitr]

Moving to 32-bit computing is just an Intel conspiracy to make you buy more hardwares.
I mean, please! If this direction is to follow, they'll tell you in 10 years that 4 GB is not enough and you need 64-bit computing.
When is it going to end!
32-bit computing = BetaMAX, doomed to fail!

it wont end...

[awaits for 1024-bit processors and 512EB of RAM]

[jwbrase]

Funnily enough, most people seem to associate the bit-ness purely with addressable memory. If that was the case an 8 bit architecture would only give a 256-byte memory space, and 16 bit would give you 64k.

16 bit could give you 128k if you addressed it in 16-bit words instead of bytes.

32 bit could give you as much as 16 gig if you addressed it with 32-bit words.

[NMFTM]

16 bit could give you 128k if you addressed it in 16-bit words instead of bytes.

32 bit could give you as much as 16 gig if you addressed it with 32-bit words.
I don't know much about that subject, but if you stored things into the RAM as words instead of bytes. Wouldn't that significently slow down the time it took to access stuff stored in the RAM because it would have to convert words to bytes that your computer could actually read?

[doas777]

When is it going to end!


ummm, evolution does not end until there is no life. so I guess it had better continue

[jwbrase]

I don't know much about that subject, but if you stored things into the RAM as words instead of bytes. Wouldn't that significently slow down the time it took to access stuff stored in the RAM because it would have to convert words to bytes that your computer could actually read?

Well, the biggest problem is that it wouldn't be compatible with existing x86 architecture machines. The CPU fetches instructions and operands a word at a time already. Byte vs. word addressing is just a matter of whether you say (using a 64 bit machine as an example) "Fetch the qword beginning at byte 16", "Fetch the qword beginning at word 8", "fetch the qword beginning at dword 4", or "Fetch qword 2". Now that we have 64 bit with its humongous address space that probably won't be fully used for a long time, you could even go the other way and do bit addressing "Fetch the qword starting at bit 128". The "downside" is that that way you'd "only" get an address space of 2 exabytes. ;)

The disadvantage to word-at-a-time addressing instead of byte-at-a-time would be backwards compatibility and probably also some space/speed tradeoffs in I/O, you don't need a 64 bit character set for I/O (ASCII is only 7 bit, the Unicode basic multilingual plane is 16 bit, and unicode has 17 planes, so the complete number of codepoints will fit in 21 bits, and each bit makes your code space twice as large).

[shebaw]

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."...Bill Gates.

What a douche bag!

[NMFTM]

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."...Bill Gates.

What a douche bag!
Never officially sourced.

[pookiebear]

netscape 2 on 4mb of ram. FTW. it was fast. Faster than firefox 3.x

[NMFTM]

netscape 2 on 4mb of ram. FTW. it was fast. Faster than firefox 3.x
I'm sure you could still run Netscape 2.0 and it probably would be a lot faster than Firefox 3.x. But you also wouldn't be able to take advantage of anything developed in the last 14 years.

[OooBuntuRox]

I'm sure you could still run Netscape 2.0 and it probably would be a lot faster than Firefox 3.x. But you also wouldn't be able to take advantage of anything developed in the last 14 years.

Take advantage of? I thought you'd be writing yer own binary or hex code. :)

[NMFTM]

I was just thinking. Most of the 32 vs 64 bit threads and benchmarks I've seen have seemed to indicate that with the exception of more RAM (not counting the 4GB+ hack for 32 bit) being available, 64 isn't much of an improvement over 32 unless your doing video or audio encoding.

Could the same thing be said about 32 bit? That, if all your doing is browsing the web, using Word/Excel/Powerpoint, and other basic tasks. That theirs really no difference between 16 and 32 bit?

Also, how long do you think we're going to have to wait until we start to see computer games that actually take advantage of 64 bit processors? All the games I've played on Windows (and I've played a few newer ones) install into the x86 Program Files folder.

[NMFTM]

Bumped, because there's still 32 vs 64 bit threads being posted that need lampooning.

[Shining Arcanine]

2^8 bits=1024 bits=1kilobit (kb)

2^8 = 256