New version of Avast released
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Puran Defrag
Next: {UPDATE} VLC media player 1.0.5
From: za kAT on 2 Feb 2010 19:59 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:40:15 GMT, Franklin wrote: >> The ability of 64 is something like 64 to the 64th power. Calculate that >> against 32 to the 32nd power. Wow! *Awesome* I just checked that on 64^64 and I was home last Tuesday running Chrome in 1994. Thanks BB. > You might want to check that. Hey, know when you are beaten Frankie, this Guy's hot. >> Huge difference in processing ability. If you can find programs that >> make use of that, you will see incredible processing ability. Thanks for the clearest, bestest, fastest explanation BB!!! You're *Awesome* -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat
From: H-Man on 3 Feb 2010 12:05 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:48:51 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b68a930$0$1543 > $91cee783(a)newsreader04.highway.telekom.at: > >> Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b6772a1$0$1549 >>> $91cee783(a)newsreader03.highway.telekom.at: >>> > What is true about that 64bit GfX port, implemented in XP? Anyone!? >>> > >>> > >>> >>> It's blazing fast if you can find programs designed to run on it :) >> >> phhhh, how do you mean that? I run on my NT5.1/DOS anything between >> 1974 and 2010 (if not too ego-shooter and 3d capabailities). DOS, Win3, >> Win9x, Nt4, even Windows 7 I should try a look ;) >> >> But I guess that my chipest can't wear a windows 7 capable GfX Card... >> XP is still ok on it (1996 chipdet!" XP=2001 ~2002) >> >> > > The ability of 64 is something like 64 to the 64th power. Calculate that > against 32 to the 32nd power. Huge difference in processing ability. If > you can find programs that make use of that, you will see incredible > processing ability. How do you define processing ability? Are you sure about your math here? AFAIK your statement here is almost entirely inaccurate. -- HK
From: Rod on 3 Feb 2010 13:05 On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:48:51 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b68a930$0$1543 > $91cee783(a)newsreader04.highway.telekom.at: > >> Bear Bottoms wrote: >> >>> "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b6772a1$0$1549 >>> $91cee783(a)newsreader03.highway.telekom.at: >>> > What is true about that 64bit GfX port, implemented in XP? Anyone!? >>> > >>> > >>> >>> It's blazing fast if you can find programs designed to run on it :) >> >> phhhh, how do you mean that? I run on my NT5.1/DOS anything between >> 1974 and 2010 (if not too ego-shooter and 3d capabailities). DOS, Win3, >> Win9x, Nt4, even Windows 7 I should try a look ;) >> >> But I guess that my chipest can't wear a windows 7 capable GfX Card... >> XP is still ok on it (1996 chipdet!" XP=2001 ~2002) >> >> > > The ability of 64 is something like 64 to the 64th power. Calculate that > against 32 to the 32nd power. Huge difference in processing ability. If > you can find programs that make use of that, you will see incredible > processing ability. Addresses available 32 bit=2^32 64 bit=2^64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
From: Craig on 3 Feb 2010 18:06 On 2/3/2010 2:58 PM, Bear Bottoms wrote: > Bear Bottoms<bearbottoms1(a)gmai.com> wrote in > news:Xns9D14AC557AB13bearbottoms1gmaicom(a)news.albasani.net: > >> Rod<abc(a)zyz.net> wrote in >> news:8mb2kuoxf33v$.1ihji2luus1eq.dlg(a)40tude.net: >> >>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:48:51 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: >>> >>>> "Daniel Mandic"<daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in news:4b68a930$0$1543 >>>> $91cee783(a)newsreader04.highway.telekom.at: >>>> >>>>> Bear Bottoms wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Daniel Mandic"<daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> wrote in >>>>>> news:4b6772a1$0$1549 $91cee783(a)newsreader03.highway.telekom.at: >>>>>>> What is true about that 64bit GfX port, implemented in XP? >>>>>>> Anyone!? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's blazing fast if you can find programs designed to run on it :) >>>>> >>>>> phhhh, how do you mean that? I run on my NT5.1/DOS anything between >>>>> 1974 and 2010 (if not too ego-shooter and 3d capabailities). DOS, >>>>> Win3, Win9x, Nt4, even Windows 7 I should try a look ;) >>>>> >>>>> But I guess that my chipest can't wear a windows 7 capable GfX >>>>> Card... XP is still ok on it (1996 chipdet!" XP=2001 ~2002) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The ability of 64 is something like 64 to the 64th power. Calculate >>>> that against 32 to the 32nd power. Huge difference in processing >>>> ability. If you can find programs that make use of that, you will see >>>> incredible processing ability. >>> >>> Addresses available >>> 32 bit=2^32 >>> 64 bit=2^64 >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit >>> >> >> Thanks, I knew it was something like that...huge difference between the >> two. It's just hard to find software that really takes advantage of it. >> > > I'll add that RAM is severly limited in 32bit processors where 64bit > processors break the 4g limit so the potential is much much greater. > Potential is the key word. MS' windows reference wrt memory limits <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx> fyi -- -Craig
From: za kAT on 3 Feb 2010 19:29
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:20:51 +0000 (UTC), Bear Bottoms wrote: > Craig <netburgher(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in news:hkcvgu$4fc$1(a)news.eternal- > september.org: > >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx > > I've looked at that before and read other articles about it. There is still > the problem for 64x while there is capability, there is a lack of software > to take full advantage of it. Gamers find use for it though...big time. Your last five posts in this thread show you are way out of your pay grade on this one. Here's some good advice. "Tis better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat |