> 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).
> 

Implying that 64-bits systems are generally better or faster than
32-bits ones might also be related to the habit of measuring the
performance, or rather generation, of game consoles in terms of bits. I
remember clearly the time when every review was speaking of 8-bits,
16-bits, 32-bits, etc. Hey, I even think the first time I heard of bits
was actually in this context :-)
Roughly each generation was doubling the "bits", so it was in the end
associated with performance. Maybe some remnants of that habit among the
people who played consoles explain the misunderstanding...

On a related note, I wonder if raster graphics are sped up when there
are more bits in the registers ? The evolution of game consoles would
suggest so, but I'm not sure of where GPUs are in terms of bitness, they
could be working in a different bitness than the processor...

In the light of this discussion, one has to wonder why would the average
desktop user need a 64-bit system anyway. Are we going to eat up 4GB of
RAM using word processors and browsing the web ? Talk about bloat :-)

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message