this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
189 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
59708 readers
2158 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wasn't 64 bit adoption largely driven by Microsoft deciding they weren't making a 32 bit version of their next Windows at one point? It seems it might take something similar.
Microsoft supports 32 bit processors still with windows 10. They died out because it was becoming clear that 4GB of memory wasn’t going to be enough for applications, and the low margins on budget chips didn’t warrant maintaining 32 bit designs when the 64 bit versions would do and could still run the 32 bit software.
No, 64 bit was widely adopted long before windows cut support. Keep in mind a 32 bit OS can only use ~4GB of ram, and most systems have been shipping with more than that for many years now.
Towards the end of 32 bit’s life, physical address extension allowed operating systems to use more memory, often up to 40 bits worth, but still could still expose a 32 bit address space to user applications.
Yes, but that would only get the total up to about 5GB, which isn’t very much more.
2^40 is a terabyte