24 Oct
1998
24 Oct
'98
9:47 a.m.
Sam wrote:
I agree with Arfon on this one. But the problem is,
how wide is wide?
Even 128 bits will be obsolete in 5 years. Do you know the kind of data
we'll be pulling off the internet by then? Voice, stero audio, video (all
2,048 Cable TV channels), not to mention whatever graphics and data.
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