Warp wrote:

> Stefan Viljoen <spamnot@ <removethis>polard.com> wrote:
>> Thanks, that's a rational view. It seems like sometimes in here stupid
>> people (like me) aren't allowed to ask stupid questions about stuff they
>> don't understand, because they promptly get beaten over the head with
>> their own question. :)
> 
>   I was just asking, out of curiosity, what is it that makes some people
> believe that a 64-bit system should/might be twice as fast (or just faster
> by some degrees) than an equivalent 32-bit system.
> 
>   It just feels that people never stop to think rationally about these
> things. "What does it actually mean that it's a 64-bit system?" After
> one thinks about that question and comes to a rational answer then one
> should/may perhaps realize that there's no logical reason why a 64-bit
> system should be twice as fast as a 32-bit system.
> 
>   Perhaps one reason might be that the popularization of 64-bit desktop
> systems (64-bitness has always been something only popular in obscure
> big servers until now) as well as the popularization of dual-core desktop
> systems (again, multiple processors have been something only used in
> obscure big servers until now) have coincided, and thus people might
> get those two things mixed up and think that they are somewhat related
> (even though they really aren't; their popularization in desktop systems
> at the same time is just coincidence).
> 
>   Most people are also probably too young to remember the shift from
> 16-bit systems to 32-bit systems in Intel-based computers and have never
> experienced first-hand the speed difference between a 16-bit binary
> compared to a 32-bit binary (if they do the same thing there's basically
> no speed difference except when big amounts of memory are needed or if
> 32-bit arithmetic is a very relevant part of the program's calculations).
> 
>> I just thought 64 is twice 32
> 
>   Did you stop to think *what* is it that is "twice"? What it could
> possibly be?
> 

On the other hand, did you stop to think that not everybody is familiar with
the inner workings of a computer? That there are actually very few people,
compared to the numbers that use them, that are knowlegable about the inner
workings?
Looking back I can see the validity in Stefan's reasoning.
-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message