Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?

> > It wouldn't be the first time they tried to
> > cripple their lower-priced products so as to
> > force many desktop users to upgrade to a more
> > expensive alternative.
> You seem to incorrectly believe that Microsoft is somehow unique in this
> respect.  It's not.  It's standard industry practice.  Everyone does it.

Yes, but it's only Microsoft whose products I'm forced to use almost
every day (be it only for damn output to my inkjet printer!).

> > The limit there is 2^64 bytes, which, however,
> > is so large that I don't believe we will ever
> > have to worry about getting close to it.
> That is by far the most common mistake of all engineers everywhere:
> underestimating future requirements.

Sure, but the jump from 32 to 64 bits address space gives us a hell
lot more time than the jump from 16 to 32 or 8 to 16. Also, 64 bits
take us to the physical limits of semiconductors, so you may be right
that we will eventually need 128 bits, but that is a long long time
away (decades, and many generations of computers).

As everything on the PC software market is drifting towards platform
transparency and portability, it becomes even less of an issue.

> You are overlooking key considerations, the most important of which is
> uneven allocation of the address space.  Having an address space of 2^64
> doesn't mean that 2^64 bytes of RAM will actually be present.  Typically the

Sure, but this is merely a software question really. Since modern
operating systems have elaborate and flexible memory handling
capabilities, and programs make no assumptions as to where in memory
they are mapped, it's a matter of making modifications to the OS and
BIOS to solve this problem. The fact that more expensive versions of
Windows can address 3GB per process shows this.

> > That reminds me of a question I sometimes ask
> > myself -- how many people still use CMYK?
> Only the entire world.  CMYK is the basis for the printed word and image
> everywhere on the planet.

I'll come back to this in my next post.


Major Andras
    e-mail: andras@users.sourceforge.net
    www:    http://andras.webhop.org/

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.