What Good is EM64T?

[$BangforThe$]

That's nonsense actually, especially in the case of EM64T. The instructionset is pretty much identical to the 32-bit one, you just get some extra registers and your pointers are now 64-bit instead of 32-bit. Pretty trivial changes.
And that only affects assembly programmers. Most programmers use higher programming languages such as C/C++, C#, Java, Delphi, VB etc. They barely even notice the difference, unless they are actually manipulating pointers. And it's no harder, it's just a larger number.

Excuse me but the longer you make a number 011100010111001 the harder it gets. and I was not talking about C/C++C

If your statement is true why aren't more programs taking advantage of 64bit computing if its so easy. I really get tierd of running out of memory when building complicated web pages. If the programmers have an easy task of fixing it with 64bit code . Why the hell aren't they.

 

[Scali]

Excuse me but the longer you make a number 011100010111001 the harder it gets. and I was not talking about C/C++C

But programmers don't work at that level. They work at a more abstract level.
Programs are much like maths... c = a + b.
Does it matter how big a and b are? No it doesn't, the CPU does the addition, so for the human it's as simple as putting a and b in, and getting the result from c, no matter how big. Also, just because you have 64-bit doesn't mean you should be using large numbers. In many cases it doesn't make any sense to use large numbers. The numbers you use in your code depend on the input data for your routine, and not on the hardware you're running it on.

If your statement is true why aren't more programs taking advantage of 64bit computing if its so easy. I really get tierd of running out of memory when building complicated web pages. If the programmers have an easy task of fixing it with 64bit code . Why the hell aren't they.

It's often as simple as recompiling with a 64-bit compiler.
They probably haven't done it yet, because the market isn't big enough yet, or there's no gain from a 64-bit version.
And how can you run out of memory with webpages? Even a modern 32-bit computer can address at least 4 gb with PAE enabled. That's an awful lot of memory to waste with a webpage. Doesn't make sense.

 

[osalcido]

is $Bang serious?? Why the hell is he talking about UFOs, Nazis and shit in a thread about 64-bit cpus?

 

[$BangforThe$]

Actually if you use an Intel computer old 32bit stuff with HT and your using more than 1 programm to build the page with and that program is using animations and you leave all programms open its very easy to run out of memory.


But programmers don't work at that level. They work at a more abstract level.
Programs are much like maths... c = a + b.
Does it matter how big a and b are? No it doesn't, the CPU does the addition, so for the human it's as simple as putting a and b in, and getting the result from c, no matter how big. Also, just because you have 64-bit doesn't mean you should be using large numbers. In many cases it doesn't make any sense to use large numbers. The numbers you use in your code depend on the input data for your routine, and not on the hardware you're running it on.


OK lets use the human bod as an example . you lay your hand on something hot . an elecrical signal is sent threw your nerves to the brain saying ouch and move hand. That could be maybe written in 32 bit code. That would be reciever mode. or C++

Now use sender mode dos if you will . The cpu instructins to the reciever. Brain to nerves to muscle
Now take a basket ball player that going to stuff the basket . He does a 360 taking off from the foul line. The amount of code to do this very hard dunk would no doubt require more than 64 bit computing . Just about every muscle in your body would recieve a message from your brain and in a speciefied order. That code would be very very complicated and would need to be written in 1 instruction. I seriousily doubt that 64bit computing from the processor would be able to accomplish this goal.

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

OK lets use the human bod as an example . you lay your hand on something hot . an elecrical signal is sent threw your nerves to the brain saying ouch and move hand. That could be maybe written in 32 bit code. That would be reciever mode. or C++

just to be a nitpicking ass, that would actually be best described as the skeletal nervous system reacts. you pull your hand away before you realize it's hot.

not sure what the best example for this would be in programming/hardware, but probably something along the lines of having a dedicated sound card to do audio work real fast without bogging down the cpu (brain)

 

[$BangforThe$]

just to be a nitpicking ass, that would actually be best described as the skeletal nervous system reacts. you pull your hand away before you realize it's hot.

not sure what the best example for this would be in programming/hardware, but probably something along the lines of having a dedicated sound card to do audio work real fast without bogging down the cpu (brain)

Muscle and skeletal are important but the nerve system carries all the information. Cut the nerve the muscle won't work. Call it the motherboard. The reciever would be the software. the sender is the cpu . in a simple finger movement the brain sends an electrial signal threw the nerves and the muscle will contract causing movement or release when electrical signal is stopped. that electrical signal is very simple code c++ but the codeing going on in the brain to send that signal is anything but simple.

 

[Scali]

I just don't think you know how a CPU works, and what the significance or insignificance of 64-bit computing is.
My professional opinion as a software engineer is that 64-bit is quite insignificant in itself, but the extra registers and tweaks in 64-bit mode on the x86 make for some nice performance increase in most cases. Not because it's 64-bit, but just because it's designed a bit better than the 32-bit mode which dates back to the mid-80s (Intel 80386).
You do understand also that we already had the ability to work with larger numbers and memory areas (like your HDD for example) long before we had actual 64-bit support in hardware, right?
So if we needed 64-bit numbers for some reason (or even larger ones, think encryption for example), we could and would use them. In that respect, nothing changes, except that it gets a bit more efficient now that the hardware can handle it natively. Not something that the average programmer would even notice, by just looking at his own code.

 

[$BangforThe$]

So if its so easy take some of these simple programms add a few more instructions per line code and become billy gates.

Your making it seem as if it doesn't require a higher skill and intellagence and I don't believe it for 1 second. AMD64 has been out a long time and instructions to use it are absent. I think programmers use the excuse that its not needed. Because 32bit computing is half as complicated as 64bit computing. Maybe I don't get it but can't you use more code per line with 64bit vs. 32bit. If not please explain.

 

[Scali]

Apparently you don't get it.
There are instructions on how to use AMD64/EM64T. Just look for the programmers manuals on either the AMD or Intel website, and you'll find some PDFs with the info you need. They've been there even before the actual hardware was on the market.

I'm not sure what you mean with 'a line'.
If you mean a line of assembly code, then no. It's pretty much the same, only your operands are twice as large. Well tehee.
If you mean a line of high-level code... well then even more no, because the language is independent of the architecture (or at least tries to be, there are a few exceptions ofcourse).
There really is no difference other than what I said... when you do something like c = a + b, then a, b and c can be larger numbers. Which doesn't really matter when you treat them as variables anyway.

In many cases, programmers have to do very little to get a 64-bit version of their program. Which is why you see eg a 64-bit version of the Source engine, or a 64-bit version of Far Cry (where they even bothered to enhance the entire game).
In some cases the code was rather buggy, and the bugs have to be fixed first. But that's not really a case of 64-bit being harder. Those bugs would also have surfaced when trying to use the code on another (32-bit) platform, or perhaps even with the same platform, but a different compiler. 64-bit just happens to be the first platform that uncovers these bugs.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Just, out of courosity... Do you have any proof? Any web links, documents, or any reading material on this theory? Or, is this just your opinion and your own theory....

I'd be intrested in reading about it if there is such material.

Sorry I missed your post . Beings how I went way off topic to get to were we are now . I not sure what links you would like.

 

[EQTakeOffense]

If I'm understanding Bang correctly, he's saying two things:

1. If the technology was reversed engineered then we are only begining to understand the technology. (A point that's debateable)

2. To have a computer do the calculations required to have true A.I would require much higher level of 'thinking' beyond 64-Bit. The calculations would be enourmous and with our 'limited' (refere to point 1) knowledge of this techonology we can not do this yet.

3. Because of our 'limited' understanding, we can not fully take advantage of the CPU. Granted programmers can code what they what, but for the computer to actually calculate the code with todays technology would be nearly impossible. Beyond the architecture is the ability for the CPU to actually process the information. Creating a CPU that is able to computer larger computations at one time, would make the computer able to processes the complex code faster.

That's what I'm understanding from Bang

I not sure what links you would like.

Well, I'm looking for how everything relates to each other. How does Jack Kilby relate to Rosewell (Did he get a hold of this 'UFO'?). Is there any information that links Rosewell to the introduction of the Semiconductor?

 

[$BangforThe$]

is $Bang serious?? Why the hell is he talking about UFOs, Nazis and shit in a thread about 64-bit cpus?

I was never talking about nazis. We were discussing dresden and the nazis gathering they had there was inrefferance to recent dresden history.

I brought ufo's in because in an earlier post reverse engineering was brought up. I pointed out that if roswell was real . than we more than likely did some reverse engineering to get to were present day computers are. It also would explain why Intel and AMD were forced into a tech agreement. When amd was building intel cpu's and than started useing intels tech to sell there own cpu's with the same numbering scheme.
Without the UFO senario(spelling) what the courts did to intel back when makes no sense. If it was Intels patients that AMD infringed on . It was an open shout case. Their was more to it than that however. UFO reverse engineering would tie it neatly together.

I also said its highly unlikely that we understand the binaries that those ufo cpu's used

BOO HA HA

 

[$BangforThe$]

If I'm understanding Bang correctly, he's saying two things:

1. If the technology was reversed engineered then we are only begining to understand the technology. (A point that's debateable)

2. To have a computer do the calculations required to have true A.I would require much higher level of 'thinking' beyond 64-Bit. The calculations would be enourmous and with our 'limited' (refere to point 1) knowledge of this techonology we can not do this yet.

3. Because of our 'limited' understanding, we can not fully take advantage of the CPU. Granted programmers can code what they what, but for the computer to actually calculate the code with todays technology would be nearly impossible. Beyond the architecture is the ability for the CPU to actually process the information. Creating a CPU that is able to computer larger computations at one time, would make the computer able to processes the complex code faster.



Well, I'm looking for how everything relates to each other. How does Jack Kilby relate to Rosewell (Did he get a hold of this 'UFO'?). Is there any information that links Rosewell to the introduction of the Semiconductor?

That's what I'm understanding from Bang


As far as the USA government goes . A weather ballon crashed at Roswel. Some have said if people knew the truth we would panic. NOT LIKELY. There were also reports that foreign governments were insisting that the US share the tech. that was found on the crash site. Than the US government made up the ballon story as being a crashed weather ballon. But because bodies were involved. The government later revised the story to a weather ballon that was carring crash dummies. Now I don't think our government really tried to hide the trueth from the American people but from foreign governments that wanted a piece of the pie. I disagree with US on this as we simply had to tell those governments to go to hell . Finders keepers. I lie in the long run only complicates things.
Kinda like the Kennedy magic bullet

Jack kelby was one of the researchers the government allowed to work on the reverse engineering and to make everthing look rosey. patients were granted to differant people.

A lie can lead to many many complications . The Intel AMD early lawsuite and the latter tech agreement ties this to reverse engineering

 

[$BangforThe$]

Apparently you don't get it.
There are instructions on how to use AMD64/EM64T. Just look for the programmers manuals on either the AMD or Intel website, and you'll find some PDFs with the info you need. They've been there even before the actual hardware was on the market.

I'm not sure what you mean with 'a line'.
If you mean a line of assembly code, then no. It's pretty much the same, only your operands are twice as large. Well tehee.
If you mean a line of high-level code... well then even more no, because the language is independent of the architecture (or at least tries to be, there are a few exceptions ofcourse).
There really is no difference other than what I said... when you do something like c = a + b, then a, b and c can be larger numbers. Which doesn't really matter when you treat them as variables anyway.

In many cases, programmers have to do very little to get a 64-bit version of their program. Which is why you see eg a 64-bit version of the Source engine, or a 64-bit version of Far Cry (where they even bothered to enhance the entire game).
In some cases the code was rather buggy, and the bugs have to be fixed first. But that's not really a case of 64-bit being harder. Those bugs would also have surfaced when trying to use the code on another (32-bit) platform, or perhaps even with the same platform, but a different compiler. 64-bit just happens to be the first platform that uncovers these bugs.

Ok As I said earlier I was not referring to C++ . Let me ask it in a simplier form is 64bit binary code more complicated than 32bit binary code. The compilers you keep going off to really are tools to transalate to simplied coding. Could you write code to create a compiler

I really don't care about the code that is used in window mode. The code I am looking for is in dos mode. The code used to create a window without a OS. . or the movement of a pointer acroos a screen. or the code used for a simple click in dos mode. Lets do it like this in binary language write a 1 bit code. and than will go from there. My sister went to school to learn card punching back in the earliy days. I laughed my ass off at her. I told her by the time she finished school what she learned would be useless. Guess what I month after she got job with MA bell . The card punch programing was old tech.
I want a compiler that really really works . that understands speech outside the OS invironment. A compiler that can learn. 64bits will not do it.

 

[EQTakeOffense]

Jack kelby was one of the researchers the government allowed to work on the reverse engineering and to make everthing look rosey. patients were granted to differant people.

Actually, doing a google search for "Jack Kilby"+Roswell New Mexico came up with some interesting results. It's a VERY intresting consipiracy theory, not one that I personally believe, but very intresting none the less. A gret intrest to those with an open mind

This is the most quote article about the subject

 

[chrisf6969]

I think this thread needs to be moved to General Mayhem or maybe even the trash bin at this point. Because every here already knows that the aliens from the Predator movies created the earth for a hunting ground, and they only gave us a little technology b/c they were getting bored with how easy it was to kill us. Its funny how noone knows that all of the Predator movies are TRUE STORIES!

<ok end crazy ranting to match $Bang's conspiracy / tin foil hat theories! >

By the way, I'm not saying ET life doesn't exist. Just not sure about if its ever visited Earth. (at least anytime recently)

I DO THINK THE ROSWELL incident was a cover up of some sort of technology, but not ET technology.

To Bang - If alien's had indeed crashed, don't you think they would have sent someone to investigate, and probably have made contact with humans. And they would have made it know to the planet. It wouldn't be a big deal if EVERYONE knew aliens were real.

You know at some point everyone had to realize that the earth was round. But when it was first proven it took a few years, then it became common knowledge and NOT a big deal.

 

[$BangforThe$]

I think this thread needs to be moved to General Mayhem or maybe even the trash bin at this point. Because every here already knows that the aliens from the Predator movies created the earth for a hunting ground, and they only gave us a little technology b/c they were getting bored with how easy it was to kill us. Its funny how noone knows that all of the Predator movies are TRUE STORIES!

<ok end crazy ranting to match $Bang's conspiracy / tin foil hat theories! >

By the way, I'm not saying ET life doesn't exist. Just not sure about if its ever visited Earth. (at least anytime recently)

I DO THINK THE ROSWELL incident was a cover up of some sort of technology, but not ET technology.

To Bang - If alien's had indeed crashed, don't you think they would have sent someone to investigate, and probably have made contact with humans. And they would have made it know to the planet. It wouldn't be a big deal if EVERYONE knew aliens were real.

You know at some point everyone had to realize that the earth was round. But when it was first proven it took a few years, then it became common knowledge and NOT a big deal.

Yes I do believe that they have sent somebody. Check out all the UFO reports. But you have to also realize that time and space are relative. Lets say that they are 10 light years from earth. In their vessel time at light speed for them would almost stop. They would arrive hear after 10 years . But to the beings onboard the ship . Only a small amount of time went by. There have been hundreds of cases of UFO abductions. But these people are all treated like nut cases. If our government covered up roswell do you reaaly think they would tell us about contact. I don't . To many creditable people have come out and said ufo's are real.

 

[visaris]

I want a compiler that really really works . that understands speech outside the OS invironment. A compiler that can learn. 64bits will not do it.

Once again, $BangforThe$ is posting as if he knows something about topics he doesn't understand. I'm going to try and educate you on this specific instance, and then I'm going to give you some personal advice that may help you in the future.

What you want to do to get started is to read a little about Turing machines to get a qualitative feel for what's going on. Here are a few highlights:

Turing machines are extremely basic symbol-manipulating devices which — despite their simplicity — can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer that could possibly be constructed.
. . .
Many machines that might be thought to have more computational capability than a simple universal Turing machine can be shown to have no more power (Hopcroft and Ullman p. 159, cf Minsky). They might compute faster, perhaps, or use less memory, or their instruction set might be smaller, but they cannot compute more powerfully (i.e. more mathematical functions). (Recall that the Church-Turing Thesis hypothesizes this to be true: that anything that can be “computed” can be computed by some Turing machine.)

A 1-bit processor can do all the things you claim a 64-bit processor can't. What one wants to take away from all this is that anything one turing machine can compute, another turing machine can compute also. As it turns out almost every single CPU in existance happens to be a turing machine*. *The only caveat is that true turing machines have infinate memory. However, the ability to adress more memory (x86 vs AMD64) is irrelevent to this point as disk, network, etc are all memory.

I'm going to be mean for a moment, and then I'm going to be slightly nicer in an attempt to make up for it.

You understand little (if anything) about programming. I love your post about 64-bit processors having more instructions per source line; that really cracks me up. Oh, yeah, and the post about 64-bit being harder to program for because there are more ones and zeros than 32-bit cracks me up as well. In addition to this, you don't understand the fundaments of computing and make posts claiming that the number of bits a CPU can process at once is somehow related to the ability of said CPU to compute a given task. I can cite more examples from this thread and can bring in many examples from other threads, but I think I made my point.

I mean, I'm embarrased for you. I'm sitting over here blushing, because you look like a fool to anyone reading your posts. You don't look like a fool because you are uninformed. You look like a fool because you state things as if they are fact when you have no idea what is going on. One should not be ashamed of a lack of knowledge, but claiming to understand things you have no grasp of is, IMHO, downright pathetic. If you have real questions, I'll happily answer all of them I can without being mean. However, you never ask these kinds of questions. You start out making big bold claims that are clearly false, and then narrow them down further and further. At some point in the defense of your ridiculous claims, you change them to some minor subset of the initial claims such that you are in fact, finally correct.

Here is the part where I try and be nice. You seem like a passionate young person with an honest interest in the field. Next time, try asking a few questions; you will be surprised how happy people are to help. Try making claims and adding insights that you fully understand and know to be correct. This will increase the value of your posts and the forum as a whole . Please, for the sake of the collective good, don't spread misinfomation and FUD.

If you stop your bad posting habits, not only will the world be a slightly better place, but you may gain a little more respect as well.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Actually, doing a google search for "Jack Kilby"+Roswell New Mexico came up with some interesting results. It's a VERY intresting consipiracy theory, not one that I personally believe, but very intresting none the less. A gret intrest to those with an open mind

This is the most quote article about the subject

If you want to become a believer and open your mind further do more research on this subject. You want a real eyeopener. We all know Einstein E=M2squared. Research tessler the mans mind was greater than stieners. Almost all of stieners work has been published. Almost all of tesslers work is classified. . Another weird thing is look at the names of the people that were born in that generation. Its beyond coincidence.

I liked your link . But when the auther went on to say that he and some friends put together a working terahertz gated capasitor transistor. and sent working models to Some of the best tech companies in the world and they should no interest. That smelled really bad. Not that tech companies weren't interested but the fact that he and associate's were able to build this capasitor transitor at prinston u . In a very short time . Just doesn't work for me. Companies like Intel rejecting it actually makes sense. If intel put out a cpu that gated at 12 terahertz and used almost no power . They would be cutting their own throats. I wouldn't need a new CPU every 3 years would I.

Intel is reported to be introducing terahertz gating on the 45nm. and 3D gating at 32nm.

Intel will move in baby steps, to far to fast kills profits long term.

Its all a game an were tha pawns. The field thats being choked from UFO reverse engineering is electro magnetics. This is interesting because this was also Tesslers field.More coincidence I think not. Oil companies would go broke. Cheap effient power for auto's and industry and homes. Thats won't happen till the last drop of oil is pumped from the earth. We have inplace in America now a consumer macro economics society. The top feeders are never going to allow the bottom feeders an even break.

I can say with a great bit of confidence all is not lost. right now today there are 2 living men that are going to change the world for the better . There is also one other man but he's a complete asshole and wants things to continue as they are. His biggest problem is people are becoming more aware. People are beginning to understand that because the so called academic society. says the world is flat . they are not to believed. They are losing their power and they know it. People are beginning to see the Men who want to lead are nothing more than power hungry pricks. People are beginning to see we don't need lawmakers. Why would I say this . Its right in front of me I am pushing keys on it.

The whole world is connected . We don't need elected lawyers who bend and twist the laws. We can all vote on all issues threw our computers. Majority rules not the law. The law has been broken. The world for the first time in history is connected. The old way of doing things is just that, the old way. I personnally would trust the majority of the china's people alot more than the minority people that run its government. This does not apply only to china But to every country in the world . Time to get rid of leadership. Time to save ourselves from the corrupt who lead us into oblivion. The computer and world internet can free us from these vitriolic power hungry assholes. Yes I love computers for me they represent the tool that can set us free from the chaines of corrupt leadership that have infested mankind since the beginning of human kind. 64 bit computing brings us a little closer to that reality. BOO HA HA

 

[Chris_Morley]

If your statement is true why aren't more programs taking advantage of 64bit computing if its so easy. I really get tierd of running out of memory when building complicated web pages. If the programmers have an easy task of fixing it with 64bit code . Why the hell aren't they.

I would honestly love to see a webpage that was so complicated it made you run out of memory while designing it. Do you have a URL I could check out?

 

[$BangforThe$]

Once again, $BangforThe$ is posting as if he knows something about topics he doesn't understand. I'm going to try and educate you on this specific instance, and then I'm going to give you some personal advice that may help you in the future.

What you want to do to get started is to read a little about Turing machines to get a qualitative feel for what's going on. Here are a few highlights:

A 1-bit processor can do all the things you claim a 64-bit processor can't. What one wants to take away from all this is that anything one turing machine can compute, another turing machine can compute also. As it turns out almost every single CPU in existance happens to be a turing machine*. *The only caveat is that true turing machines have infinate memory. However, the ability to adress more memory (x86 vs AMD64) is irrelevent to this point as disk, network, etc are all memory.

I'm going to be mean for a moment, and then I'm going to be slightly nicer in an attempt to make up for it.

You understand little (if anything) about programming. I love your post about 64-bit processors having more instructions per source line; that really cracks me up. Oh, yeah, and the post about 64-bit being harder to program for because there are more ones and zeros than 32-bit cracks me up as well. In addition to this, you don't understand the fundaments of computing and make posts claiming that the number of bits a CPU can process at once is somehow related to the ability of said CPU to compute a given task. I can cite more examples from this thread and can bring in many examples from other threads, but I think I made my point.

I mean, I'm embarrased for you. I'm sitting over here blushing, because you look like a fool to anyone reading your posts. You don't look like a fool because you are uninformed. You look like a fool because you state things as if they are fact when you have no idea what is going on. One should not be ashamed of a lack of knowledge, but claiming to understand things you have no grasp of is, IMHO, downright pathetic. If you have real questions, I'll happily answer all of them I can without being mean. However, you never ask these kinds of questions. You start out making big bold claims that are clearly false, and then narrow them down further and further. At some point in the defense of your ridiculous claims, you change them to some minor subset of the initial claims such that you are in fact, finally correct.

Here is the part where I try and be nice. You seem like a passionate young person with an honest interest in the field. Next time, try asking a few questions; you will be surprised how happy people are to help. Try making claims and adding insights that you fully understand and know to be correct. This will increase the value of your posts and the forum as a whole . Please, for the sake of the collective good, don't spread misinfomation and FUD.

If you stop your bad posting habits, not only will the world be a slightly better place, but you may gain a little more respect as well.

Point well taken . I think there is something you should understand. The only things I believe are fact is today ends and tomorrow beginns. Everthing else I am open to .
This is a discussin forum were do get off saying someones posting style is stating facts.
I was doing nothing but discussing possiabitities. I never state any thing as A MATTER of FACT. If I pull up to a stop light and the light is green i go . That would seem to be a factual statement when in fact it is a percieved statement. Its a learned statement. How do I know that the light color is infact green . I don't I only believe because some other moron taught me it was the color green. But someone else was taught that color was red. and they say its red. Is that person wrong No their not. Only I would believe their wrong and people who were taught the same as myself would their wrong . Is this infact a true statement? If you would agree with that statement threw deduction. I have one question for you. Do i go threw the traffic light knowing the guy in the other car was taught something differant than myself?

Well you said you would help .

In binary code write an 8bit command than state what the command is. use dos

Than do 32 bit . Than do 64 bit. enlighten me . I want to see that 1bit is no more complicated than 64 bit. I don't want the same command used on the 3 . I actually want to see full usage of a 64 bit command. This would help me very much.


I really find it hard to believe that 1bit = 64bit. or is time infinite in this 1bit = 64bit theory. Whats that calculator china's uses with the beads called?

 

[Bao01]

I don't I only believe because some other moron taught me it was the color green.

The light is green. The color green is defined by wavelength on the EM spectrum. Is is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of opinion.

But someone else was taught that color was red.

Not in this world. Not in reality. In fact, if they were taught that the color red is called green and the color green is called red, then they would have been mistaught or misled. If they were living in a bubble, they could believe this because they would have no way of verifying it. In the real world, they can.

and they say its red. Is that person wrong No their not.

Yes, that person would be wrong.
.
.
The argument that truth changes according to the viewpoint of the viewer is called relativism. When this argument is used against something that has been defined by reality, it fails.

Those who are color-blind have a hard time telling the difference between certain colors. They are handicapped in that respect. Those who are blind can't see. You can tell them pink is orange and they probably could care less. But, someone who is stopped at the light does not depend on his color blind passenger to tell him(the driver) if the light is green or red when he(the driver) can better tell the difference. He does not ask the blind person.

We have definitions and truths for a few reasons. One of these is to prevent chaos.

 

[$BangforThe$]

The light is green. The color green is defined by wavelength on the EM spectrum. Is is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of opinion.



Not in this world. Not in reality. In fact, if they were taught that the color red is called green and the color green is called red, then they would have been mistaught or misled. If they were living in a bubble, they could believe this because they would have no way of verifying it. In the real world, they can.



Yes, that person would be wrong.
.
.
The argument that truth changes according to the viewpoint of the viewer is called relativism. When this argument is used against something that has been defined by reality, it fails.

Those who are color-blind have a hard time telling the difference between certain colors. They are handicapped in that respect. Those who are blind can't see. You can tell them pink is orange and they probably could care less. But, someone who is stopped at the light does not depend on his color blind passenger to tell him(the driver) if the light is green or red when he(the driver) can better tell the difference. He does not ask the blind person.

We have definitions and truths for a few reasons. One of these is to prevent chaos.

Interesting point of view. So when acadimic society taught the world was flat I should except it as such . When infact threw simple deduction . I could be looking at a distant mountain range and see the tops clearly but the larger base I can't see. Threw simple deductions I could reason that they earth is infact round because of the fact I could not see the much larger base.

We have definitions and truths for a few reasons. Its now taught in this country the the LAW rules . But I look at the consty. and he seems to say in its orginal form before it was corrupted by lawyers. that The majority rules. not the law. the law can be changed. Three branches were set up the judical . the excutive and the leg. these three were designed as checks and balances. Truth is all three are run by lawyers. Checks and balances are gone forever. Was it not setup as I stated. if not what part did I get confused on.

The law rules is the same setup as what we fought against. Law the word is nice i like it. Problem with law the rich and powerful have the laws changed to suite their needs. Laws today are not really designed to protect the innocent. There designed to protect the rich and powerful. Same problem the old world had our forfathers came here to escape.

You used the word chaos . here's what you said

We have definitions and truths for a few reasons. One of these is to prevent chaos.

Where exactly do you live. Our prisons are full. Our boarders are being overrun. Drugs are everwhere if your neighbor hood pusher is out of drugs go to a doctor and they well fix you up with a prescription. If you go on strike to better your life the government sends in the national guard. People without green cards can take your job . All they need is a fake SSnumber that no one checks. Rapist are set free after three years in prison . People with multi DUI's do the same time as rapist. Econimic numbers released by government are pure BS. no inflation LOL. they really mean no blue collar raises.

Packing house workers that put food on your table make less wages today than they did in 1970. The auto industry is a disaster in usa. Our railroads are a joke while we have millions of long haul trailers on the highway. pounding the piss out of the roads . Our water supply is tanented. The ozone is collapsing the ocean level is rising really fast . the glaciors are melting really fast. . Fella get out from under your rock were living in chaos. Its the worse kind of chaos because its being controlled. I would rather see utter chaos . At least than I would have a fighting chance.

You acadimics have the ans. to everthing but the truth.

On the stop signal thing nothing on earth can change the actual color were talking about

The color green is defined by wavelength on the EM spectrum color infact can't change the word used to discribe that color can be changed to what ever the powers that exists want. They can make that word any word they choose. The color stays the same only the word usage is differant.

 

[Bao01]

Interesting point of view. So when acadimic society taught the world was flat I should except it as such . When infact threw simple deduction . I could be looking at a distant mountain range and see the tops clearly but the larger base I can't see. Threw simple deductions I could reason that they earth is infact round because of the fact I could not see the much larger base.

We have definitions and truths for a few reasons. Its now taught in this country the the LAW rules . But I look at the consty. and he seems to say in its orginal form before it was corrupted by lawyers. that The majority rules. not the law. the law can be changed. Three branches were set up the judical . the excutive and the leg. these three were designed as checks and balances. Truth is all three are run by lawyers. Checks and balances are gone forever. Was it not setup as I stated. if not what part did I get confused on.

The law rules is the same setup as what we fought against. Law the word is nice i like it. Problem with law the rich and powerful have the laws changed to suite their needs. Laws today are not really designed to protect the innocent. There designed to protect the rich and powerful. Same problem the old world had our forfathers came here to escape.

You used the word chaos . here's what you said

We have definitions and truths for a few reasons. One of these is to prevent chaos.

Where exactly do you live. Our prisons are full. Our boarders are being overrun. Drugs are everwhere if your neighbor hood pusher is out of drugs go to a doctor and they well fix you up with a prescription. If you go on strike to better your life the government sends in the national guard. People without green cards can take your job . All they need is a fake SSnumber that no one checks. Rapist are set free after three years in prison . People with multi DUI's do the same time as rapist. Econimic numbers released by government are pure BS. no inflation LOL. they really mean no blue collar raises.

Packing house workers that put food on your table make less wages today than they did in 1970. The auto industry is a disaster in usa. Our railroads are a joke while we have millions of long haul trailers on the highway. pounding the piss out of the roads . Our water supply is tanented. The ozone is collapsing the ocean level is rising really fast . the glaciors are melting really fast. . Fella get out from under your rock were living in chaos. Its the worse kind of chaos because its being controlled. I would rather see utter chaos . At least than I would have a fighting chance.

You acadimics have the ans. to everthing but the truth.

A) This is not a political forum. Take that drivel somewhere else.

B) Your imaginary gentleman at the red light who says it's green, acts on that impulse, and gets a ticket, or wose yet, hits and kills someone because of his opinion, is going to be penalized. That is order. Your mind is in chaos.

C) The word used to describe the color green is not the same in every language. The behavior of the color green does not change. The word may change, but the properties do not.

D) You don't live in the dark ages. Once someone verifies that the shape of the earth is round, you can run around with your tin-foil hat yelling out how flat it is and the fact will remain that it is round.

E) I am not an academic. I just have better certification and experience than you do. It's easy to get one over you because knowledge + application > simple knowledge>> ignorance.

F) is for failure to make a rational argument.

Congrats

 

[$BangforThe$]

Nice to see that you think enough of yourself to award yourself points. You were argueing against an example a bad one but only an example. For that I would have to remove points because in the end you came up with the same conclusion . That I based my example on. If your taught something and its differant than what someone else is taught only threw word usage . That makes both of you correct and the word usage the only differance in your perception. And he would not have run threw the stop signal . If I was taught green was green and he was taught red was green . He would stop . I had the green light. he had the green light also but his green was my red. My green was his red. He still new to stop at his green light. Perception is a very curious thing.

 

[$BangforThe$]

D) You don't live in the dark ages. Once someone verifies that the shape of the earth is round, you can run around with your tin-foil hat yelling out how flat it is and the fact will remain that it is round.
your argument here makes no since. the world was being taught as being flat period.
They were running around saying the world was flat. You can yell the world is flat only until the teachings are proven false. Than they will say as do all acadimics I knew that.

 

[Scali]

Ok As I said earlier I was not referring to C++ . Let me ask it in a simplier form is 64bit binary code more complicated than 32bit binary code. The compilers you keep going off to really are tools to transalate to simplied coding. Could you write code to create a compiler

No, 64-bit binary code is no more complicated than 32-bit binary code. It's still x86, and just like the 32-bit and 16-bit variations, the differences are small and insignificant from the point of coding complexity.
And yes, I can and have written compilers.
Point is just that most coders never need to use assembly or have to write a compiler, so the point is moot. When using a compiler, in most cases you won't notice that you are using a 64-bit computer at all. When using an assembler, you will notice, but it's not harder, you just get to use more registers, and your operands are now often qwords instead of dwords, tehee.

I really don't care about the code that is used in window mode. The code I am looking for is in dos mode. The code used to create a window without a OS. . or the movement of a pointer acroos a screen. or the code used for a simple click in dos mode.

What's the difference? Code is code.
The way you go on is like calcing 1 + 1 is suddenly harder when you have to do it in some kind of big physics calculation rather than just counting your money.
The '1 + 1' part is still the same, the physics themselves may be harder, but that corresponds to 'programming' at a higher level (software engineering), not at the level of actually writing code.

DOS is just an OS (and I use the term loosely). Writing code isn't directly related to the OS. I think you don't really understand what an OS is, or what actual programming is, so it's pointless to try and explain... I can give an example, but you probably wouldn't understand...

But this would be 32-bit code:

mov eax, 1
add eax, 1

And this would be 64-bit code:

mov rax, 1
add rax, 1

Tell me which one is harder?

And if we would use C++, then in both cases it would look like this:

int x = 1 + 1;

I want a compiler that really really works . that understands speech outside the OS invironment. A compiler that can learn. 64bits will not do it.

Then you don't want a compiler, you want something completely different, some kind of AI.

 

[visaris]

Ah, you beat me to the code examples scali.

Then you don't want a compiler, you want something completely different, some kind of AI.

Well, if you think about it, all a compiler does is take a program written in one language and translate that into machine language. So, I suppose one could call what bang wants an "english compiler". Though, yes, I agree. That would certainly take some kind of AI and natural language understanding code.

Now, we have been telling bang about how 64-bit code is just as easy and how it is frequently the same. I'll try to give an example of how 64-bit code can produce a faster application.

Imagine that one is writing some kind of cryptography application that uses XOR heavily. (Wow, this is going to be the worst encrption algorithm ever, but I'm trying to make a point.) I'm going to write this code twice: the first assuming that the largest integer I can use is 32 bits, and the second time for a 64-bit processor.

void encrypt(unsigned char *data, int size, unsigned int key) 
{
  int           s = size/sizeof(unsigned int); 
  unsigned int *d = (unsigned int*)data;

  while(s--)
    *(d++) ^= key;
}

void encrypt(unsigned char *data, int size, unsigned long key) 
{
  int            s  = size/sizeof(unsigned long); 
  unsigned long *d  = (unsigned long*)data;

  while(s--)
    *(d++) ^= key;
}

Yes, "data" needs to be aligned properly and be the right length, etc, etc, (this is just an illustrative example). The point is that the first version will take size/4 passes through the encryption loop and the second version will take size/8 passes. In this example, the 64-bit version will be essentially 2x as fast. Yes, I know, horrible code. Again, it's just an example. But, notice that both versions are almost identical and both are very easy to write. ( edit: I changed the second example to take the key as a packed 64-bit value )

Now I'll try to highlight some points on why 64-bit code would be easier to write. Suppose I have two large numbers (around 2^60) and I want to add them. The first complication is that I can't even store those values in an integer. I really have to use two. One for the high-order bits (bits 32-63) and one for the low-order bits (0-31). What I'll need to do is do this addition in multiple stages. I'll need to do a number of additions to sum all the sections, and I'll also have to worry about carry bits in the case that the low order bits overflow. I haven't even gone into how one would accomplish all this, and already is seems slightly tricky. On a 64-bit machine, all you would need to do is issue a single add instruction. Much, much easier.

Now, C and C++ should have a "long long" data type which is supposed to be 64-bits large. This is, however, more of a software type. On 32-bit boxes, any instructions using these types are actually replaced by heaps code to emulate the 64-bit data types. Slow.... On 64-bit boxes, the actual instructions are compiled in like they should be.

Well, I hope this post at least helps someone.

 

[Scali]

The point is that the first version will take size/4 passes through the encryption loop and the second version will take size/8 passes. In this example, the 64-bit version will be essentially 2x as fast.

Yes, although in such cases, you would be bandwidth-limited. And since the x86 has had a 64-bit databus since the first Pentium, you will gain very little today by such 64-bit code (assuming the compiler will roll out the loop and basically eliminate the loop-overhead, making it purely a bandwidth-limited routine).
So 64-bit isn't such a leap forward as it sounds at first.
In fact, HT seems to make more sense in 64-bit, in these kinds of situations, since the actual 'gain' is that you are using less execution units to accomplish the same operation at approximately the same speed. So a second thread will now have more idle execution units at its disposal with Hyperthreading.

The only gain is like in your last example, where you can create less complicated, more efficient code for handling larger numbers.
Although even that is not such a big gain. When going from 8 to 16 bit, and from 16 to 32 bit, there was quite a significant gain, since the ranges were so limited that many routines would require larger numbers. With 32 bit, the range is so big that it is sufficient for probably 95% of all applications. And a lot of what's left, falls into the range of floating point numbers, so even there 64-bit is no advantage, since we already have these floating point processors with extended ranges, and often more efficient than integer operations.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Thanks for that post. The example didn't matter as we were just trying to show the values. Ya you helped me see that some instructions would be the same but that was a given. I still can't help but think your oversimplifing . My daughter has shown me some of the c++ stuff and I have her college books. . Do I have this correct or bachwards.

0= gate open

1=gate closed

Thanks for the help . I am still quit confused but not so much as befor.

I will say that if i was a programmer . I would be busy taking existing programms that are written for 32bit. and converting them to 64bit. A patient only covers pacific things and if 64 bit coding is as easy as 32 bit coding . I would make companies pay for not converting to 64bit code. Few changes here and there and your within the law.

When programmers talk about source code what are the actually referring to . Give simple example

 

[Scali]

Gates are the most basic kind of electric circuits performing some kind of binary operation.
A programmer doesn't deal directly with gates. Gates are the building-blocks of processors. A processor offers the programmer instructions so he doesn't have to deal with the underlying gates and other logic.
Which is exactly why it doesn't really matter whether a CPU is 1-bit, 64-bit or 512-bit.
The biggest problem with 'more bits' is that it requires more gates, and wider datapaths (so you need to have more pins on your CPU socket, more traces on your motherboard and more pins on the memory etc). Which is why manufacturers prefer not to use more bits than necessary. On videocards 128 bit datapaths are standard, and most high-end models have 256-bit.
Which should also prove that 64-bit isn't really a big deal for humans today.

Also there's no point in forcing 64-bit code for everything (and if you want it, run linux, you can get pretty much everything 64-bit there). The applications will come sooner or later, most companies are probably just waiting for the next big version/update of their software.

And sourcecode is basically "that which a programmer writes". Could be anything from VB to punchcards. If you want to look at some actual sourcecode, check out www.sourceforge.net. It's a big repository for opensource projects. You can download and view the sourcecode of many applications there. Most of it is C/C++.

 

[RazorWind]

When programmers talk about source code what are the actually referring to . Give simple example

Typically, a computer program is written in a language that is relatively easy for a trained individual to understand, such as C++. While not just any english-speaking individual is guaranteed to be able to read it, a person trained to read this language can read it reasonably easily. A computer processor, however, must have its instructions encoded in a specific format, which is usually represented as ones and zeros when written on paper. Translating from that first language to the computer's binary (one and zero) language is performed by a compiler.

The code written in the easily-human-understandable language, before it is translated to the binary language is referred to as source code.

For instance, the examples that Scali gives above are snippets of source code. Given that there are no syntactic problems, those examples could be translated by a compiler into binary code that a processor is actually able to execute.

 

[dotK]

This thread is CLASSIC. I clicked on this thread in hopes of getting some examples of applications that effectively use new 64-bit CPUs and what I got was wayyyy better than that.

 

[$BangforThe$]

Typically, a computer program is written in a language that is relatively easy for a trained individual to understand, such as C++. While not just any english-speaking individual is guaranteed to be able to read it, a person trained to read this language can read it reasonably easily. A computer processor, however, must have its instructions encoded in a specific format, which is usually represented as ones and zeros when written on paper. Translating from that first language to the computer's binary (one and zero) language is performed by a compiler.

The code written in the easily-human-understandable language, before it is translated to the binary language is referred to as source code.

For instance, the examples that Scali gives above are snippets of source code. Given that there are no syntactic problems, those examples could be translated by a compiler into binary code that a processor is actually able to execute.

Razor I like your thinking. you seem very knowlegdeable . Please give me am example of Dos code written for 64 bits. If you would. Also compiler code adderessing the cpu gates.

 

[Scali]

DOS is 16-bit, you can't write a 32-bit or 64-bit program for DOS.
The only thing you can do is write a 'DOS-extender', which is basically a 32-bit or 64-bit replacement kernel which handles switching to 16-bit and calling BIOS/DOS handlers.
But that's all rather pointless when there are real 64-bit OSes (the whole idea of CPUs, instructionsets, OSes, drivers and compilers is to NOT reinvent the wheel everytime).
The code itself is still the same, since the CPU's instructionset obviously doesn't change when you use Windows or linux instead of DOS.

And you don't address CPU gates, you simply execute instructions, everything else is handled inside the CPU, and is of no concern to the programmer.
A CPU is not just a box of gates, but also a box of tools to use these gates.

 

[visaris]

and if you want it, run linux, you can get pretty much everything 64-bit there.

QFT. I run 64-bit gentoo, and 100% of my apps are compiled for 64-bit.

 

[Donnie27]

DOS is 16-bit, you can't write a 32-bit or 64-bit program for DOS.
The only thing you can do is write a 'DOS-extender', which is basically a 32-bit or 64-bit replacement kernel which handles switching to 16-bit and calling BIOS/DOS handlers.
But that's all rather pointless when there are real 64-bit OSes (the whole idea of CPUs, instructionsets, OSes, drivers and compilers is to NOT reinvent the wheel everytime).
The code itself is still the same, since the CPU's instructionset obviously doesn't change when you use Windows or linux instead of DOS.

And you don't address CPU gates, you simply execute instructions, everything else is handled inside the CPU, and is of no concern to the programmer.
A CPU is not just a box of gates, but also a box of tools to use these gates.

Great Work dewd! Thank you for taking the time I enjoyed reading it and will save links.

 

[Bao01]

Nice to see that you think enough of yourself to award yourself points. You were argueing against an example a bad one but only an example. For that I would have to remove points because in the end you came up with the same conclusion . That I based my example on. If your taught something and its differant than what someone else is taught only threw word usage . That makes both of you correct and the word usage the only differance in your perception. And he would not have run threw the stop signal . If I was taught green was green and he was taught red was green . He would stop . I had the green light. he had the green light also but his green was my red. My green was his red. He still new to stop at his green light. Perception is a very curious thing.

Perception =! semantics.

You didn't come to the same conclusion as I did. You went back and edited your post to make it look like you did. The proof is I had quoted your original and you went back and changed it half an hour later. So clearly, you've learned something from me.

I don't expect any thanks from you. But, I do expect you to not find a sneaky way to deny it.

Now, I'm telling you to stop with the bullshit. Stop with the pretenses. If you don't know, don't wank off like you do, just as someone has told you already and to whom you've responded with obfustication and to which I felt necessary to point out to you.

I don't know why you were banned from AT forums as you stated before. But, you're creating difficult situations here. I have a good memory. I remember from your first posts, all the extravagant claims. You are young and uninformed and you should not be pretending to be something you are not.

Lastly, to aid you in future reasoning I suggest to you to use the Socratic method of learning by asking questions. For example: to the question of chaos, ask yourself how it would be without these rules, how more ordered or chaotic it would be. Ok, you're still impressionable. So, don't worry about the law. Institutional laws are not necessarily based on truth or fact, but also on the common good, rights, and the necessity to make things manageable among other reasons...and the law dictates only a few facets of life.

your argument here makes no since. the world was being taught as being flat period.
They were running around saying the world was flat. You can yell the world is flat only until the teachings are proven false. Than they will say as do all acadimics I knew that.

The world was not proven flat. It was poorly reasoned so, only by western society and during its darkest moments. Everyone else either did not care or did not believe the world was flat. In fact, Byzantine art routinely depicts the world as a sphere or globe.
As I have stated to you, you do not live in that age. In the here and now, we have proof that the earth is round.

 

[Scali]

The world was not proven flat. It was poorly reasoned so, only by western society and during its darkest moments.

Exactly, which means there are two problems:
1) We didn't know, because we couldn't verify it. So we had to reason, and believe that our reasoning was right.
2) Reasoning wasn't done in a very structured and logical way, and sometimes mistakes would be made, and not noticed for ages.

In the case of 1)... we can easily verify anything about our CPUs because we design and manufacture them ourselves. So we know exactly what's inside a CPU, no need to reason.

In the case of 2)... in the last few centuries, science has come a long way, and lots of progress has been made in formalizing logic and reasoning, and defining rules and guidelines, which means that we are much less prone to make mistakes in our reasoning now than we were in the dark ages. We are also more aware of where mistakes would pop up in reasoning, so we can verify our reasoning better.

 

[chrisf6969]

Thanks for that post. The example didn't matter as we were just trying to show the values. Ya you helped me see that some instructions would be the same but that was a given. I still can't help but think your oversimplifing . My daughter has shown me some of the c++ stuff and I have her college books. . Do I have this correct or bachwards.

0= gate open

1=gate closed

Thanks for the help . I am still quit confused but not so much as befor.

I will say that if i was a programmer . I would be busy taking existing programms that are written for 32bit. and converting them to 64bit. A patient only covers pacific things and if 64 bit coding is as easy as 32 bit coding . I would make companies pay for not converting to 64bit code. Few changes here and there and your within the law.

When programmers talk about source code what are the actually referring to . Give simple example

I'm glad you're asking for help to understand some of this magic computer stuff. instead of just ranting. Computers, computer languages, programs, are defined and well understood. You just need to talk to the right people in the right fields. You should read about quantum (physics) computers. That would probably interest you more!

You also would do well in Philosophy class. Ever take one? You'd love to argue the brain in a vat theory, or the "if the brain was simple enough to understand, then we would be too simple to understand it", or god is unimagineable for our simple minds.

Anyway, to answer your question.... if you have the source code, (code written in a high level language, like C+, etc..) all you should probably have to do is just open your compiler program, select your source code, tick the 64-bit, box and then click compile. Almost as easy as opening an adobe photoshop file (source) and resaving it as .jpg.

They do the same basic thing..... the larger original is easier to understand, manipulate and change, then the output is the compiled "image".

I'm kind of over simplifying it, but to get something to work in 64-bit mode its quite simple, now to optimize it for 64-bit might take a little more tweaking, but still quite simple.

Or you can manually edit the final proguct (machine language, but you can sometimes break things like that, or you can make them work better if you know what you're doing) Kinda the same with an adobe original file vs .jpg.
-once again simplified.

I hope I helped.