Please disreagrd this message! I'm really sleepy....I missed the
fact that a 128-bit processor would access over 4 billion times the
amount a 32 bit one would. I forgot all about the 64-bit ones. In this
case, I would agree, and go as far as to say that humanity will _never
access 300 tredecillion bytes, since to do so would require us to
dissassemble several planets. This had been discussed when I wasn't
paying attention...
>contiguously (and would probably require a lot of hardware to access
>it). There are plenty of tasks that can use up much more than 4GB ram,
>most notably databases and various graphics. 1GB is currently the
>amount of RAM a high-end server can be expected to have, and in CGI
>and engineering applications, even this isn't enough. To sum up,
>volume always fills capacity, as the highway engineers that are
>tearing up boston haven't learned yet. But, what's the amount of RAM
>a 128-bit processor can access?
>>I beg to differ, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.
>I'm
>>willing to bet $1000 that there will be no practical applications
>requiring
>>processors with 128-bit addressing by October 24, 2003. Any takers?
>>
>>> Yep. Short-sightedness (and history) is seemingly repeating on this
>list.
>>
>>We'll see.
>>
>>This is not the same shortsightedness as the old series of claims:
>>
>> You'll never need more than 1K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 4K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 16K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 32K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 64K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 128K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 256K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 512K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 640K of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 1M of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 4M of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 16M of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 64M of RAM.
>> You'll never need more than 256M of RAM.
>>
>>And yes, I've heard every single one of these statements made at one
>>time or another. I haven't yet heard anyone claim that I'll never
need
>>more than 512M of RAM. My current Linux workstation has 384M of RAM,
>>of which I routinely use more than 300M for large compiles (and I do
>mean
>>LARGE compiles, some require over 500M virtual) and for image
>processing.
>>
>>Eric
>>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Sat Oct 24 1998 - 17:23:55 BST