So how long do you think it will be before such technoloogy is widely availble to the public?
10 years? Maybe 25?
yes!!! A thread that I am waiting for!
everything you know is wrong
why do you want more than 64 bits? is addressing 16 exabytes of RAM at once insufficient for your needs?
MOAR IS BETTER!!!
Those are not numbers that just increase. They actually mean something, and if you don't know what, asking that question is meaningless.
That OP should start talking in qubits.
Seriously, if NOTHING else will run Microsoft Train Simulator at a frame rate of 30 or more..............
With the advent of the mass-produced quantum computer Microsoft and Apple will die due to technological differences - namely, the fact that these machines are infinitely superior to any other and that they operate on XNOR, which would necessitate a completely new approach to computer sciences.
The whole quantum computer thing is kind of overblown. As soon as they're going (and they're probably already going in the basement of the NSA), the support devices (cryogenics, whatever) will be very large and they'll be limited to very specific research applications. There's going to be a technology divide: the masses will still be using slightly faster variants of the machines we use right now while CERN will be using quantum computers. Even in the distant future, people will still be doing Internet/word processing on non-quantum computers because why would you need such a thing in the house? Think about it: there are machines in the world that can freeze helium solid, but all I need is a refrigerator keep my beer cold. Anyway, I think your investments in major technology firms are pretty safe for many decades to come.
Unless we drop the client/server model in computing and switch back to mainframe/thin client
The whole electric typewriter thing is kind of overblown. As soon as they're going (and they're probably already going in the basement of the War Department), the support devices (vacuum tubes, whatever) will be very large and they'll be limited to very specific research applications. There's going to be a technology divide: the masses will still be using slightly better variants of the machines we use right now while MIT will be using punch cards. Even in the distant future, people will still be doing Mail/word processing on non-electric typewriters because why would you need such a thing in the house? Think about it: there are machines in the world that can freeze water solid, but all I need is an ice box keep my cider cold. Anyway, I think your investments in the Dow Jones Industrial Average are pretty safe for many decades to come.
Yeah, I know I may eat my own words, but whatever. We still don't have flying cars or use furniture that you clean with a hose.
Also, you actually edited that entire post instead of just using search/replace. GG!
> Also, you actually edited that entire post instead of just using search/replace. GG!
ORIGINAL CONTENT, DO NOT STEAL!
Optical computing is likely to be the next step, when they reach the physical limit to the size of transistors.
If we can actually make a quantum computer, it won't be for a while - commercially even longer.
As far as 64-bit OS's are concerned, the bit size, among other more important details, is an indication of how large the maximum RAM a computer can have/use without an address extension.
32 bit computers can have a maximum of 2^32 bits, or 4 GB, of RAM. We have gotten to the point where 4 GB is easy to use and get - this is where the 64-bit OS comes into play.
A 64 bit OS can use up to 2^64 bits of RAM, or 16 exabytes of ram (roughly 17.2 billion GB). Excepting the usefulness of calculating with very large numbers efficiently, we won't need more than 64-bits until we can use over 16 exabytes of RAM.
Heh, kind of reminds me about how Bill Gates said something like 32 megabytes of hard drive space is more than we'll ever need.
>>19
True. The rest is useless junk for tree-dee vidyagaems and jewtoob and colour graphics. We don't need it. But it makes life easier for the non-blind of us.
I'm not much of an electrician or mathmatician, but couldn't an OS be built on something between the complexity and economy of 32 bit and 64 bit processing? 48bit?
Inevitably we will see great reduction in efficiency and move past 3D as we passed 2D. But do we really need new processers (v. more) to unlock dependable holos & VR?
48 isnt a power of two, cant have that ! :P
>>28 Fine then, but couldn't you just weave a microchip to avoid silly hardware mathematic mindgames? ª¿ª
But what if I want to run a simulation that's so realistic the characters in it think that they're real?
That's why we need 1024 bit processors and 256 bit OS!
Go ahead and talk a hardware manufacturer into mass-producing a 1024-bit processor. Then get a software company to make a 256-bit OS to run on it. I'd like to see one of these bad boys in action.
Considering the latest advancement in the field of optical computing consists of one very large chip with about the same processing power of a handheld calculator, and considering that to be used, it has to be cooled to 0.01 degree above absolute zero. I think the advent of mass-produced quantum computers is not something we need to be concerned with just yet.
i cant count to 2^256, let alone 2^1024 -_-
Do we really need such accurate calculations for that? I would rather go for number of cores counted in dozens ;) We don't need accurate numbers but speed and having more bits won't do it. And even then you can have seperate processors with own memory just communicating each other as different parts of brain do.
And BTW characters can think that they're real even if they would be 2D or even if they would have some very simplistic senses and wouldn't have any virtual body at all ;) And this would be much more interesting than simulation of real world :)