x
 

On 2009-11-27, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Bill
writes

I just wondered what '64 bit' meant.

A byte (sure you've heard of that) is made up of 8 bits, or two nibbles,
because it is convenient to convert binary to decimal or hexadecimal.

'Bitness' of a computer refers to how much memory it can access.

Early home computers were 8-bit: they were limited in the amount of
memory they could access. Maximum memory size is 64KB (65,535 bytes).

Not quite - they worked on 8-bit words but had 16-bit addresses.

2^8 = 256
2^16 = 65536 (65,535 is the maximum address, but byte 0 counts too!)

This is why the meaning of 64-bit can vary and is not as simple as
it seems.

And why is this message called 'x'? Because this newsreader insists that
every message has a title. Why?

It's a requirement so that newsreaders can thread articles (group
articles with the same title together) so that you logically follow the
conversation.

Actually it isn't. They use Message-ID and References headers to thread
messages, even if the subject changes mid-thread.

It's also a very good idea to use a meaningful Subject: (what you call a
title) then the thread will attract those interested in it.

However, not putting a meaningful subject is very bad manners.
Especially for an entirely off-topic post like this one...

--
David Taylor

x
 

In article , David Taylor
writes

Not quite - they worked on 8-bit words but had 16-bit addresses.

Thanks. Result of a hangover. I don't think there is much doubt though
that the CPUs of the time were generally referred to as 8-bit.

Actually it isn't. They use Message-ID and References headers to thread
messages, even if the subject changes mid-thread.

And there was me trying not to give Bill something else to scratch his
head about :)

Especially for an entirely off-topic post like this one...

Hmm. I used to be a real netkkkkop for off-topic posts, but think as
the number of people using Usenet has shrunk the occasional one is ok.
It depends very much on the group and its regulars.

--
Mike Tomlinson

x
 

On 2009-11-27, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , David Taylor
writes

Not quite - they worked on 8-bit words but had 16-bit addresses.

Thanks. Result of a hangover. I don't think there is much doubt though
that the CPUs of the time were generally referred to as 8-bit.

Yep. But even back then it was complicated!

Actually it isn't. They use Message-ID and References headers to thread
messages, even if the subject changes mid-thread.

And there was me trying not to give Bill something else to scratch his
head about :)

Oops. :)

Especially for an entirely off-topic post like this one...

Hmm. I used to be a real netkkkkop for off-topic posts, but think as
the number of people using Usenet has shrunk the occasional one is ok.
It depends very much on the group and its regulars.

Don't get me wrong - I enjoy most of Bill's posts, but I'd still like
him (and everyone else) to provide a meaningful Subject. It makes
it far easier to find something I read earlier and want to reply to,
if nothing else.

--
David Taylor

x
 

Kind of. As new microprocessors were made with increasing bit-sizes, the
number of pins on the chip-packages increased enormously as the processors
had to convey the information on their "data-bus" (and other busses) to
and from the surrounding components on parallel connections. It required
considerable advances in chip-packaging and printed-circuit-board
technology to make the larger processor bit-sizes possible.

The larger bit-sizes are desirable because handling data in parallel means
that the processor can work that much faster. It is possible for a
processor to handle data that exceeds its bit-size but only at the expense
of having to chop that data up into small chunks, processing it a bit at a
time, and then re-assembling it (in a way that's hidden from the ordinary
computer user) but that slows its speed considerably.

As for why processor bit sizes are typically 8, 16, 32, and 64: those
numbers are in the mathematical sequence of powers-of-two, and it makes
the internal maths easier to handle data in chunks of those sizes.

--
Dave Farrance

++++++++++
An explanation about computers in good plain English that makes sense! So it
CAN be done!

Bill

x
 

Yes (and no!) a 32 bit processor is limited to 2^32 bytes (= 4GB) of
memory, various legacy reasons mean most can only sensibly use about 3GB
of that, then there are nailed on schemes that allow machines to have
more than 4GB of memory, so long as each individual program doesn't want
to see more than 4GB of it.

For disc storage, some programs are limited to 2GB or 4GB files, some
filesystems are limited to 2^32 disc sectors of 512 bytes each (= 2TB)
which is "only" the size of the largest hard disk available nowadays.

The industry has to go through the pain every few years, from 8-16bit
and from 16-32bit, and now from 32-64bit (for windows that is, we had
64bit VMS boxes back in the early 90's and linux has had a fairly
painless 64bit option for years).

Thankfully each doubling of bits has more effect than the last one, so I
don't expect I'll ever have to worry about 128bit processors unless
there's a breakthrough in cryogenic storage.

++++++++++
If I keep reading this I will be able to look the IT man in the eye!

Bill

x
 

Bill wrote:
And why is this message called 'x'? Because this newsreader insists that
every message has a title. Why?

To encourage folks to give nice meaningful names to their messages -
make the group easier to follow and all that.

But software shouldn't be used to blindly enforce something that is protocol
or manners, right as it might be. It's officiousness.

You are quite free to post messages which are off-topic, badly formatted
or lacking subjects. But why make it more difficult for people to
understand you? There are many more readers than writers, per post.

x
 

We're now pushing the envelope at 4GB (mainly thanks to some brain-dead
decisions by the PC and processor makers) so we now have 64-bit
machines, with (something silly) maximum memory. 64-bit has been around
for many years, mainly in supercomputers and workstations running an
operating system called UNIX and similar OSes such as Linux which were
developed with 64-bit architectures in mind, but has only recently
entered the PC market. The main reasons for this are that it needs a
new OS (e.g. 64-bit Windows), and hardly any existing software will run
on it.

+++++
Ah, so that explains why iPlayer won't work on the 64 bit internet doodah.
That's what I was trying to find out, from a starting point where I didn't
know what 64 bit referred to or what it was.

And why is this message called 'x'? Because this newsreader insists that
every message has a title. Why?

+++++
It's a requirement so that newsreaders can thread articles (group
articles with the same title together) so that you logically follow the
conversation.

++++++++++
That makes sense.

Bill

x
 

Don't get me wrong - I enjoy most of Bill's posts, but I'd still like
him (and everyone else) to provide a meaningful Subject. It makes
it far easier to find something I read earlier and want to reply to,
if nothing else.

++++++
Yes, you're quite right. I was only being a ****.

Bill

x
 

On 2009-11-27, Bill wrote:
Don't get me wrong - I enjoy most of Bill's posts, but I'd still like
him (and everyone else) to provide a meaningful Subject. It makes
it far easier to find something I read earlier and want to reply to,
if nothing else.

++++++
Yes, you're quite right. I was only being a ****.

Yes, don't worry about that. Instead, please worry about how to get
your newsreader to properly quote text, it's getting far more annoying
than the lack of a subject line!

--
David Taylor

x
 

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:23:02 GMT, "Bill"
wrote:

Yes, you're quite right. I was only being a ****.

Can News Rover be set to quote properly, i.e. put a in front of
quoted text? It would make reading your posts a lot easier. I
preferred it when you were using OE, and that is something I never
thought I would write.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.