I don't even know why I'm replying to this.. a day late, and you (zeph) barely replied to my first post, but whatever:

You don’t get it do you? Technology isn’t going to wait on you. Technology doesn’t stop. When the flood gates up & true 64-bit computing is available without barriers so that people can have 16,000 Gigs of RAM, then that’s the direction computing will go.

I don't know if you know what a "64-bit" processor actually is, but I do and it's not the revolution you seem to think it is. At best it represents a processor which is twice as fast/efficient as a 32 bit equivalent. In reality applications of a 64bit instruction, result, or address space are not exceptionally common and I'd expect the actual speed gain of a 64bit processor to be around the 1.5 mark. This is ignoring the types of nonlinearities associated with an increased bus size which inevitably results in increased power and heat disipation requirements.

Furthermore, it isn't alack of address space which keeps us from throwing 10 or more gigs of RAM in a home computer. That problem is easy to overcome, what's not easy to engineer is ram which can perform reasonably fast when the associated amount of excess wiring/transistrs is put in close proximity. I alluded to the memory latency bottleneck in my last post, but now I'm going to own you (with the help of intel's Platform 2015 (ftp://download.intel.com/technology/computing/archinnov/platform2015/download/Platform_2015.pdf) and this paper: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/papers/Hitting_Memory_Wall-wulf94.pdf).

Both outline the problem of the memory bottleneck. While CPU speeds have grown at an annual rate of 55%, memory speed has only improved 10%. Of special note, is the complete LACK of bus size as a topic of intel's 2015 platform.. in other words, the leaders of the CPU market don't see any serious benefit to future computing, so please STFU about how 64 bit processors are going to revolutionize the industry.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in 15-20years we needed 128bit systems.

You. Are. Fucking. Retarded.

Ever hear of Moore’s Law dumbfuck?

Moore's law has nothing to do with bus or instruction size. It relates only to the size of transistors, or how many we can fit onto a single chip. More transistors does not result directly in larger instructions, those extra transistors are generally used as more on-chip cache or registers. Another doubling of register size would result in no useful gains for video gamers... No game progammer has ever implemented a system for performing 128bit math on a 64bit processor and thought to themselves "gee, I wish I could do this in hardware". That level of precision has no application in videogames.

I encourage you to read through that intel document I linked, it outlines fairly conservatively the future of computing. Parallelism is in, as is on chip memory. Intel's paper suggest something in the gigabyte range for on chip memory.. nothing like your ludicrous claims of 16,000 gigs. Just because bus size increased from 8 to 16, to 32 fairly quickly don't assume that futher increases will result. Notice how long we used 32 bit processors, and notice how slow the 64 bit adoption was. 32 bit processors reigned for well over a decade, and 64 bit processors will likely have a longer lifetime. Architectures are no longer capable of acheiving speed increases in this way, they have to get smarter as opposed to just getting larger.

Fuck, in a few years they’re going to be talking about holographic television because of the wide-open space and breathing room that 64-bit computing will provide.

A 64 bit architecture doesn't enable holographic television, a fucking holographic medium enables it.

I’ll have the right video card and if I had a widescreen monitor

?? So you're entire rant about widescreen monitors was bullshit... say it aint so!

That’s what widescreen does for you when it works!!!! I’ve explained that if you have a 22” monitor 4:3 & a 22” monitor at 16:9..

QFT. Stop comparing widescreen monitors of the "same size" to 4:3 monitors of the same size. The comparison is NOT valid, one is SMALLER than the other.

I know right now that a lot of you are scratching your heads and thinking no, no, that’s not how it works.

No one is scratching their heads about this, we are just confused as to why you are comparing 22" widescreends to 22" 4:3's, as the comparison is not valid. Compare the widescreen to a 4:3 of the same height, that is the valid comparison to make...