On 01/07/2019 22:05, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> 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.
>
Umm. Can a 32 bit OS run 64 bit programs?


--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

    - Bertrand Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05