The Natural Philosopher  wrote:
> On 01/07/2019 17:00, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2019-07-01, A  Dumas  wrote:
>>
>>> The Natural Philosopher  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/07/2019 10:59, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher  writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/07/2019 08:32, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher  writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30/06/2019 21:02, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For both Intel and ARM the 64-bit instruction sets double the number
of
>>>>>>>>> architectural GPRs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ground penetrating radars?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> General Purpose Registers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that. But who else does?
>>>>>
>>>>> People who are interested enough in assembly language to learn some of
>>>>> the associated terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>> (People are aren’t interested in assembly presumably don’t care about
>>>>> the detailed differences between instruction sets.)
>>>>
>>>> Ok, but there is a lot of assumption in there :-)
>>>
>>> E.g. I used to do assembler programming (long ago) but only after saw the
>>> explanation did I go: ah yes.
>>
>> This brings us to an important rule of writing: if you're going to use
>> an acronym or abbreviation - especially if it's not in wide use - write
>> it out in full the first time, preferably followed by the abbreviation
>> in parentheses.  Afterwards you can use the abbreviation alone and the
>> reader will be sure to know what it means.
>>
>> If you're only using the term once, don't waste your (or the reader's)
>> time by abbreviating it at all.
>>
> Exactly. I've done loads of assembler, and know what general purpose
> registers are but I had to think a bit before I associated 'GPR' with them.
>
> Anyway beck to the thread: I stand by my statement that unless you are
> masively compute bound running a 32 bit OS wont slow you down too much,
> you only have 4GB to address anyway, so no need for 64 bit there, and in
> reality whacking in an SSD is probably all you need to do to get a very
> acceptable general purposes desktop system
>
>
>
> And of couyrse its not erleavant to an absteraqct discussion about 64
> bit processors, since its is ARM specific (and maybe one or tow others).
>
>
>

And, of course, if you’re massively compute-bound you aren’t spending much
time in the OS, so that’s not an issue.

--
-michael - NadaNet 3.1 and AppleCrate II:  http://michaeljmahon.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05