Support of multiple core 64 bit processors and 4GB RAM

acl wrote:
wrote:

I don't doubt that, single cores seem to be hitting the megahertz
ceiling and the next route is to increase the core count. If the main
cpu players get core-crazy we'll easily see 32 cores in desktop
machines in the near future.

Yes, and the funny thing (well, to me) is that most of this power will
be used to move windows around the screen! LOL!

Not by all of us.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Paul J Gans wrote:
acl wrote:
wrote:

I don't doubt that, single cores seem to be hitting the megahertz
ceiling and the next route is to increase the core count. If the main
cpu players get core-crazy we'll easily see 32 cores in desktop
machines in the near future.

Yes, and the funny thing (well, to me) is that most of this power will
be used to move windows around the screen! LOL!

Not by all of us.


Of course not: I am not disputing that some people have uses for that
power (simulations, numerical work, image processing etc). But look at
how much the memory, processor etc requirements of Windows have
increased over the years. We now have computers that are ridiculously
more powerful than the ones in 1990 (say), and in every house, too (in
rich countries). And, on average, what does all this computing power
do? It moves windows around. I mean, looking at specifications that
some people quote, they have more processing power than a Cray XMP.
It's funny.

acl wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
acl wrote:
wrote:
I don't doubt that, single cores seem to be hitting the megahertz
ceiling and the next route is to increase the core count. If the main
cpu players get core-crazy we'll easily see 32 cores in desktop
machines in the near future.
Yes, and the funny thing (well, to me) is that most of this power will
be used to move windows around the screen! LOL!
Not by all of us.


Of course not: I am not disputing that some people have uses for that
power (simulations, numerical work, image processing etc). But look at
how much the memory, processor etc requirements of Windows have
increased over the years. We now have computers that are ridiculously
more powerful than the ones in 1990 (say), and in every house, too (in
rich countries). And, on average, what does all this computing power
do? It moves windows around. I mean, looking at specifications that
some people quote, they have more processing power than a Cray XMP.
It's funny.

The people who buy the most powerful computers for home use are gamers.

Lionel wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:06:20 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

acl wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:
acl wrote:
wrote:
I don't doubt that, single cores seem to be hitting the megahertz
ceiling and the next route is to increase the core count. If the main
cpu players get core-crazy we'll easily see 32 cores in desktop
machines in the near future.
Yes, and the funny thing (well, to me) is that most of this power will
be used to move windows around the screen! LOL!
Not by all of us.

Of course not: I am not disputing that some people have uses for that
power (simulations, numerical work, image processing etc). But look at
how much the memory, processor etc requirements of Windows have
increased over the years. We now have computers that are ridiculously
more powerful than the ones in 1990 (say), and in every house, too (in
rich countries). And, on average, what does all this computing power
do? It moves windows around. I mean, looking at specifications that
some people quote, they have more processing power than a Cray XMP.
It's funny.

The people who buy the most powerful computers for home use are gamers.

...or Photoshop users.
Gamers buy exotic video hardware that would be of little use to
PhotoShop users, and outrageously powerful sound systems, as well as
loads of ram and processor power. They are also more likely to
overclock their systems.

Ron Hunter wrote:

The people who buy the most powerful computers for home use are gamers.

Or SETI participants like me.

Mardon wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

The people who buy the most powerful computers for home use are gamers.

Or SETI participants like me.

While I feel the SETI program is an interesting thing, I certainly
wouldn't buy extra computer power so that it could work on finding
presumed extra-terrestrial life. The real power of the distributed
processing model is not in how powerful any one processor is, but in how
many can be put on the task.

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:23:33 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

Just wondering if there is image processing software which can make full
use of 64 bit processors with more than one core (i.e. Core 2 Duo, Core
2 Quad or equivalents from AMD) and which can use more than 4GB RAM (I
know for instance of mainboards which take 8GB RAM)? Intel is planning
to have a processor with 32 cores by 2009.

As I understand, MS - even with the new 'vista' only handles 4gb. Linux
systems, on the other hand, have handled larger memory models for some
time - I think that is your best bet. There are a large number of image
processing packages available: gimp, ufraw, bibble, lightzone . . .

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:21:44 -0700, ray wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:23:33 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

Just wondering if there is image processing software which can make full
use of 64 bit processors with more than one core (i.e. Core 2 Duo, Core
2 Quad or equivalents from AMD) and which can use more than 4GB RAM (I
know for instance of mainboards which take 8GB RAM)? Intel is planning
to have a processor with 32 cores by 2009.

As I understand, MS - even with the new 'vista' only handles 4gb. Linux
systems, on the other hand, have handled larger memory models for some
time - I think that is your best bet. There are a large number of image
processing packages available: gimp, ufraw, bibble, lightzone . . .

You understand wrong.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Yes, and the funny thing (well, to me) is that most of this power
will
be used to move windows around the screen! LOL!
Not by all of us.

Of course not: I am not disputing that some people have uses for that
power (simulations, numerical work, image processing etc). But look
at
how much the memory, processor etc requirements of Windows have
increased over the years. We now have computers that are ridiculously
more powerful than the ones in 1990 (say), and in every house, too
(in
rich countries). And, on average, what does all this computing power
do? It moves windows around. I mean, looking at specifications that
some people quote, they have more processing power than a Cray XMP.
It's funny.

It really is funny because family and friends ask me all the time what I
recommend they buy, and the vast majority of them just want to surf,
email, print a few things, etc., but they all think they need the newest
and most powerful computers to do it.

And some of these people STILL have the habit of single-tasking and
don't leave windows open on the screen - they close one, and open
another, then close that one and re-open the first one again...duh. They
still don't get it, even when I show them my desktop with at least half
a dozen programs running 24/7 and more when I'm actively using the
computers.

The people who buy the most powerful computers for home use are
gamers.

Generally yes...or number crunchers like me.

"ray" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:23:33 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

Just wondering if there is image processing software which can make
full
use of 64 bit processors with more than one core (i.e. Core 2 Duo,
Core
2 Quad or equivalents from AMD) and which can use more than 4GB RAM
(I
know for instance of mainboards which take 8GB RAM)? Intel is
planning
to have a processor with 32 cores by 2009.

As I understand, MS - even with the new 'vista' only handles 4gb.

Vista 32-bit all editions is limited to less than 4gigs. Vista 64-bit is
limited to less than 16 or 128gigs depending on edition.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...sta_ff_x64.asp