x
 

I just wondered what '64 bit' meant. This is what Wiki told me. It's
meaningless. Don't they have anyone that can explain things in plain
English? At school I was top of the class at comprehension. But this means
nothing to me.

In computer architecture /wiki/Computer_architecture, 64-bit integers
/wiki/Integer_(computer_science), memory addresses /wiki/Memory_address,
or other data /wiki/Data units are those that are at most 64 bits
/wiki/Bit (8 octets /wiki/Octet_(computing)) wide. Also, 64-bit CPU
/wiki/Central_processing_unit and ALU /wiki/Arithmetic_logic_unit
architectures /wiki/Computer_architecture are those that are based on
registers /wiki/Processor_register, address buses /wiki/Address_bus, or
data buses /wiki/Bus_(computing) of that size. 64-bit is also a term given
to a generation of computers in which 64-bit processors were the norm.
64-bit CPUs have existed in supercomputers /wiki/Supercomputers since the
1960s and in RISC /wiki/RISC-based workstations
/wiki/Computer_workstation and servers /wiki/Server_(computing) since
the early 1990s. In 2003 they were introduced to the (previously 32-bit
/wiki/32-bit) mainstream personal computer /wiki/Personal_computer
arena, in the form of the x86-64 /wiki/X86-64 and 64-bit PowerPC
/wiki/PowerPC processor architectures.
Without further qualification, a 64-bit computer architecture generally has
integer and addressing registers /wiki/Processor_register that are 64 bits
wide, allowing direct support for 64-bit data types and addresses. However,
a CPU might have external data buses /wiki/Data_bus or address buses
/wiki/Address_bus with different sizes than the registers, even larger
(the 32-bit Pentium /wiki/Pentium had a 64-bit data bus, for instance).
The term may also refer to the size of low-level data types, such as 64-bit
floating-point /wiki/Floating_point numbers.

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

Bill

x
 

"Bill" wrote in message
...
I just wondered what '64 bit' meant. This is what Wiki told me. It's
meaningless. Don't they have anyone that can explain things in plain
English? At school I was top of the class at comprehension. But this means
nothing to me.

The answer to the simple question you posed is also simple.

In computing, which uses binary arithmetic, each binary digit (with a value
of either 1 or 0) is commonly referred to as a 'bit'.

So 64 bit means something constructed of 64 binary digits (or whatever the
correct term is).

Beyond that it gets a little more complicated.......

x
 

Bill wrote:
I just wondered what '64 bit' meant. This is what Wiki told me. It's
meaningless. Don't they have anyone that can explain things in plain
English? At school I was top of the class at comprehension. But this means
nothing to me.

You mean "Wikipedia" - there are other wikis.

You could try http://simple.wikipedia.org/ - but I don't think they have
an article on 64-bit.

x
 

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
David WE Roberts wrote:

"Bill" wrote in message
...
I just wondered what '64 bit' meant. This is what Wiki told me. It's
meaningless. Don't they have anyone that can explain things in plain
English? At school I was top of the class at comprehension. But this
means nothing to me.

The answer to the simple question you posed is also simple.

In computing, which uses binary arithmetic, each binary digit (with a
value of either 1 or 0) is commonly referred to as a 'bit'.

So 64 bit means something constructed of 64 binary digits (or
whatever the correct term is).

Beyond that it gets a little more complicated.......

So each 64-bit 'word' can have any one of 2^64 (2 to the power of 64)
possible values - which is about 18 million million million in real money.

If you like, you can say that data are moved around in 64-bit chunks, and
that each data item has a precision of 1 in 18 million million million.

As others have said, it's slightly more complex than that because computer
memory can be used in different ways for handling text and real
(non-integer) numbers, etc. But hopefully, you will get the general idea
from this.

--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

x
 

Bill wrote:

I just wondered what '64 bit' meant. This is what Wiki told me. It's
meaningless. Don't they have anyone that can explain things in plain
English? At school I was top of the class at comprehension. But this means
nothing to me.

In what context Bill?

DSP's (meters), computing general, processors...? Means slightly different
things in all those catagories!

Generally, it usually refers to the internal architecture of a digital
device and how "big" the largest possible number carried in a "word" of
data can be,

For example, 8 bit "blocks (words)" can hold a number no greater than 255
16 bit blocks can hold a number up to 65525
etc etc.

In DSP's and non integer based applications, it can mean considerably higher
precision numbers can be used (more numbers after the decimal point).

On a consumer level, it's not usually anything to worry about but something
the marketing dept love to put on the front of a device in big letters
because it sounds technical and impressive...

Basically, if you need a 64bit architecture (or indeed if you have one!)
you'll know about it otherwise it's not really too much to worry about.

As for subject lines in newsgroups... It's to help us fallable humans pick
up stuff that we're interested in and follow the thread... or not :)

Cheers,
Mike

x
 

Bill wrote:

I just wondered what '64 bit' meant. This is what Wiki told me. It's

Its a very general question, for which any comprehensive answer would be
very broad. Rather like "What does 1600cc mean?"

If you narrowed it down a bit to say "what is a 64 bit processor" then
it gets easier to answer if you don't mind their being a list of caveats
and exceptions to every statement! ;-)

But I couldn't frame that question because I honestly had never heard of a
64 bit processor.

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.

Bill

x
 

"Bill" wrote in message
...
I just wondered what '64 bit' meant. This is what Wiki told me. It's
meaningless. Don't they have anyone that can explain things in plain
English? At school I was top of the class at comprehension. But this means
nothing to me.

The answer to the simple question you posed is also simple.

In computing, which uses binary arithmetic, each binary digit (with a value
of either 1 or 0) is commonly referred to as a 'bit'.

So 64 bit means something constructed of 64 binary digits (or whatever the
correct term is).

Beyond that it gets a little more complicated.......



Yes, but that's a good start. Far better than Wiki's attempt.

Bill

x
 

So each 64-bit 'word' can have any one of 2^64 (2 to the power of 64)
possible values - which is about 18 million million million in real money.

If you like, you can say that data are moved around in 64-bit chunks, and
that each data item has a precision of 1 in 18 million million million.

As others have said, it's slightly more complex than that because computer
memory can be used in different ways for handling text and real
(non-integer) numbers, etc. But hopefully, you will get the general idea
from this.

Yes indeed I do. Thank you.

Bill

x
 

On 26/11/09 19:26, Bill wrote:

I honestly had never heard of a 64 bit processor.

But were you aware of 8 bit (around the BBC micro/ZX Spectrum era), 16
bit (PCs around the DOS era) or 32 bit (PCs from the Windows 3.x era)
processors?

It's not simply down to the size of numbers that a machine can handle,
after all 8 bit machines could handle numbers larger than 256, and 16
bit could handle numbers bigger than 65535.

The main driver for increasing bit depth is to address larger amounts of
memory, for most home users the roughly 4GB limit hasn't hit yet, but
for businesses, servers capable of handling 32GB or 256GB of memory are
not uncommon.

Similarly there are several instances related to disk storage where the
limit of 2 terabytes rear their ugly head.

x
 

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 26/11/09 19:26, Bill wrote:

I honestly had never heard of a 64 bit processor.

But were you aware of 8 bit (around the BBC micro/ZX Spectrum era), 16 bit
(PCs around the DOS era) or 32 bit (PCs from the Windows 3.x era)
processors?

It's not simply down to the size of numbers that a machine can handle,
after all 8 bit machines could handle numbers larger than 256, and 16 bit
could handle numbers bigger than 65535.

Specifically it's the size of the 'machine word' - the largest amount of
data that the CPU (Central Processing Unit) can handle in one go. Larger
numbers are handled with 'multiple precision' algorithms - like 'carrying'
and 'borrowing' to add and subtract decimal numbers more than 9.

The main driver for increasing bit depth is to address larger amounts of
memory, for most home users the roughly 4GB limit hasn't hit yet, but for
businesses, servers capable of handling 32GB or 256GB of memory are not
uncommon.

There's no necessary connection between the word size and the 'address
space' - the numbers of words (or bytes) that the processor can access -
4-bit processors used to have 12-bit addresses, and 8-bit processors have
16-bit addresses. The 16-bit Intel processors had a peculiar 'segmented'
addressing scheme.

I suppose I've lost Bill by now, unless he was having us on about his
inability to understand this sort of stuff.

(Actually he looked at the wrong Wiki page -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_word would have been better - though
it's not obvious that is what is meant when people talk about a 64-bit
processor.)

--
Max Demian

x
 

On 26/11/09 19:26, Bill wrote:

I honestly had never heard of a 64 bit processor.

But were you aware of 8 bit (around the BBC micro/ZX Spectrum era), 16
bit (PCs around the DOS era) or 32 bit (PCs from the Windows 3.x era)
processors?

+++++
Good grief! No, I was not even remotely aware of such things!


It's not simply down to the size of numbers that a machine can handle,
after all 8 bit machines could handle numbers larger than 256, and 16
bit could handle numbers bigger than 65535.
The main driver for increasing bit depth is to address larger amounts of
memory, for most home users the roughly 4GB limit hasn't hit yet, but
for businesses, servers capable of handling 32GB or 256GB of memory are
not uncommon.
Similarly there are several instances related to disk storage where the
limit of 2 terabytes rear their ugly head.

+++++
Are these limits inherent in some way?

Bill

x
 

If you have upgraded your PC in the last couple of years there is a fair
chance you are typing on one now! (the current AMD/Intel 64 bit
processors also run 32 bit code to support existing apps and operating
systems).

++++++++
That's what made me ask the question! I have to run a 32 bit version of the
internet thingy or iPlayer won't work.

Bill

x
 

I suppose I've lost Bill by now, unless he was having us on about his
inability to understand this sort of stuff.

++++++
I certainly was not having you on. There's no need for me to ACT daft.

Bill

x
 

"Bill" wrote:

Are these limits inherent in some way?

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

x
 

On 27/11/09 00:03, Max Demian wrote:

I suppose I've lost Bill by now, unless he was having us on about his
inability to understand this sort of stuff.

I *was* trying to avoid my replying looking too much like the WikiP
article Bill first encountered!

x
 

On 27/11/09 04:47, Bill wrote:

Are these limits inherent in some way?

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.

x
 

In article , John Rumm
wrote:
You still get outlook express users falling into the 2GB trap[1] and
their email going bang.
[...]
[1] Using 32 bit signed integers, you get a wrap around from + to - at 2GB

What is it exactly that is limited to 2GB? The messagebase?

I don't use OE myself, but sometimes have to help people who do.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

x
 

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).

Modern PCs are mostly 32-bit. The potential memory size doubles for
every bit added. Maximum memory size is 4GB.

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.

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.

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.

--
Mike Tomlinson

x
 

In article , Bill
writes

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

I couldn't disagree more.

The roads would be chaos without the Highway Code and the law.

Usenet would be chaos without some rules. How would you deal with it if
all the groups were amalgamated into one called 'news.all' ? There are
about 60,000 groups depending on who you ask!

Usenet is defined in RFC 1036:

www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html

FAQ is frequently asked question.

RFC is 'request for comments'. This is the traditional way of setting
standards for everything 'net related - it defines protocols, etc. and
goes back to RFC 1 produced in 1969. TCP/IP, the common protocol that
allows totally different computers to intercommunicate, is explained in
RFC 1180.

Without it we'd be floating in a sea of incompatible protocols,
proprietary software, and territorial battles today. You might think
it's bad enough today, imagine what it would be like without some rules.

The Internet began with the academic community, and as academics arrive
at agreement by consensus and peer review, the title 'request for
comments' was felt more appropriate than "Rules for XYZ".

Usenet is a peer-to-peer protocol. This means there's no one giant
server, but articles are passed between news peers agreeing to exchange
messages. It is what is known as a 'distributed' resource.

--
Mike Tomlinson

x
 

"Bill" wrote in message
...
I suppose I've lost Bill by now, unless he was having us on about his
inability to understand this sort of stuff.

++++++
I certainly was not having you on. There's no need for me to ACT daft.

I think the problem you hit was that Wikipedia isn't designed for any
particular audience. If (as I suspect) you were looking for an explanation
of the term "64-bit processor" (and how such an animal differs from
processor with other numbers of bits), you are immediately redirected to the
"64-bit" page you quoted, which is very technical and intended for CPU
freaks.

I can't find a page that explains in a clear way the difference between the
"machine word" sizes of microprocessors and their significance suitable for
the non-specialist (not that I count myself as one).

--
Max Demian

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.

x
 

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

++++++++
I've look at all the options and I can't find a way to do it. It's absurd.

I don't remember ever posting in Old English. Unless you mean my frequent
use of the word '****e'. I do that because when I was a junior school boy
the people who despised me because I didn't hero worship the captain of the
school team used to chant

Billy Wright
Billy Wright
Had a ****e
In the middle of the night!

It was terrible poetry, really. Very poor in so many ways. I don't know why
they bothered with it. I used to feel about them the same way that Jamie
feels about the whole of humanity except himself. I must have been very
arrogant.

Bill

x
 

That's what made me ask the question! I have to run a 32 bit version of
the
internet thingy or iPlayer won't work.

Which "internet thingy" is this?

+++++
The Internet Explorer (64 bit) thingy. I astonished New Steve with my
computing prowess by loading the 32 bit version so I could use iPlayer.
Incidentally, does anyone know why all IT people are called Steve? Is it
something to do with their bits?

Bit
I mean Bill

x
 

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:06:18 GMT, "Bill"
wrote:

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

++++++++
I've look at all the options and I can't find a way to do it. It's absurd.

I just tried out News Rover, and it is by far the worst Usenet client
I have ever seen. It is probably ok if you want it for downloading
illegal content, but for posting text I would avoid it like the
plague.
--
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.

x
 

John Rumm wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:
You still get outlook express users falling into the 2GB trap[1] and
their email going bang.
[...]
[1] Using 32 bit signed integers, you get a wrap around from + to -
at 2GB

What is it exactly that is limited to 2GB? The messagebase?

Yup, when the .pst grows past 2GB OE can't handle it.


Blimey, I didn't know that. Just checked the equivalent file for Thunderbird,
1.36 GB, that's every mail I've kept since Nov 2001. I regularly back it up
BTW !

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

x
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
Max Demian wrote:

I can't find a page that explains in a clear way the difference between
the "machine word" sizes of microprocessors and their significance
suitable for the non-specialist (not that I count myself as one).

Even there you are not going to get clear answers, since machine word size
alone is not the complete answer (e.g. how do you classify a 68008 -
external 8 bit architecture, internal 32 bit register layout etc)

I would have thought that the machine word would be 32-bit, with an 8-bit
bus.

In the same way that the 8088 was 16-bit with an 8-bit bus.

--
Max Demian

x
 

Max Demian wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
Max Demian wrote:

I can't find a page that explains in a clear way the difference between
the "machine word" sizes of microprocessors and their significance
suitable for the non-specialist (not that I count myself as one).
Even there you are not going to get clear answers, since machine word size
alone is not the complete answer (e.g. how do you classify a 68008 -
external 8 bit architecture, internal 32 bit register layout etc)

I would have thought that the machine word would be 32-bit, with an 8-bit
bus.

In the same way that the 8088 was 16-bit with an 8-bit bus.


The 8088 was 8-bit until IBM's marketing people wanted to call the first
PCs 16 bit.

If the IBM PC was 16 bit then the 68008 is 32 bit. I reckon they are
both the 8-bit variants of (16|32) bit chips.

Andy

x
 

John Rumm wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:
You still get outlook express users falling into the 2GB trap[1] and
their email going bang.
[...]
[1] Using 32 bit signed integers, you get a wrap around from + to -
at 2GB

What is it exactly that is limited to 2GB? The messagebase?

Yup, when the .pst grows past 2GB OE can't handle it.

I don't use OE myself, but sometimes have to help people who do.

Sometimes lopping a lump out towards the start of the file to bring it
under 2GB and then running a .pst repair program will recover it with
loss of a few old emails.


But Outlook Express doesn't use .PST files.
Outlook does.
Whole different program.

OE used DBX files, which are another can of worms.

--
Ron

x
 

Bill wrote:
That's what made me ask the question! I have to run a 32 bit version of
the
internet thingy or iPlayer won't work.

Which "internet thingy" is this?

+++++
The Internet Explorer (64 bit) thingy. I astonished New Steve with my
computing prowess by loading the 32 bit version so I could use iPlayer.
Incidentally, does anyone know why all IT people are called Steve? Is it
something to do with their bits?

Bit
I mean Bill

Once you have 64-bit hardware, you then can choose to run 32 or 64 bit
operating system ( like windows ).

32-bit windows can still be run on the newer 64 bit hardware, it just
won't make full use of it.

Then, if you have 64-bit hardware and 64-bit windows, you can then run
fancy new 64-bit programs, or you can still run your old 32-bit
programs. Windows 64 bit handles the old 32-bit programs for you.

Some ( many ) programs are made available in 32-bit only. They work
just fine on 64-bit windows, mostly.

Some programs will be available in new 64-bit version, which will only
run on 64-bit systems.

Internet Explorer is available in 2 versions: 32 and 64 bit.
Either work on a 64-bit system.

The problem is that many of the popular add-ons ( plug-ins ) for IE
which are needed to view modern web content are not available for the
64-bit version of IE. So to view many web bages, you need to use the
old 32-bit version of IE, even on your fancy 64-bit system. That's why
the 32-bit version of IE is the default browser, even on 64-bit systems.


--
Ron

x
 

None of the attribution line insertion operators seem appropriate.

Bill

--
Apologies for formatting; I am using NewsRover

x
 

Once you have 64-bit hardware, you then can choose to run 32 or 64 bit
operating system ( like windows ).

snip

The problem is that many of the popular add-ons ( plug-ins ) for IE
which are needed to view modern web content are not available for the
64-bit version of IE. So to view many web bages, you need to use the
old 32-bit version of IE, even on your fancy 64-bit system. That's why
the 32-bit version of IE is the default browser, even on 64-bit systems.

++++++++++
By gum I'm learning some stuff here!

--
Apologies for formatting; I am using NewsRover