The Computer Revolution and the Average Consumer.

I wrote this last night on Roxanne. Have you seen all those pictures yet?

As I write this, nibbles upon nibbles of information are flowing through my AMD Athlon 64 3200+. What does the 64 mean? Put simply, it means the hardware has a 64-bit infrastructure. Okay, that’s a bit vague. It means that memory addresses can be up to 64 bits long. Addresses? Again, I get sketchy. Instead of having a mere 32-bit block to write out information, the hardware has 64 bits to work with. With 32-bit architecture, Windows can address a max of about 3.5 gigs of memory. That means putting in a full 4 gigs of RAM in a computer is foolhardy, as part of it is unaddressable.

64-bit computing, I’m living in the future. Except, I’m not.

As always is the case, hardware can only be optimized by the software that runs on it. I’m running Microsoft Windows XP Professional with service pack 2. A mouthful. This is 32-bit operating system. As such, it can not address information longer than 32 bits (in one spot). Such are the technicalities.

At this point, I think only nerds like me are even aware that the 64-bit “revolution” is even upon us. There’s something else even more revolutionary: Dual-core processors. There are servers out there running quad-core processors. The future is indeed here!

Over a decade ago, there was a rather large hub-ub about something called “multimedia”. Using different medias at once. And then “multitasking”. Multitasking was but an illusion at the time, based on how fast your processor could finish a queue of instructions you’ve given it. Having a processor with two cores means your computer can finally processors two separate taskes at the same time. That’s amazing, isn’t it?

But why the hell do you need that? Frankly, I’m not convinced the average person needs it.

My sister reminded me recently that she wanted me to build her and her boyfriend a computer. This excited me. Building my computer was a process of finding the best I could without crossing that performance VS cost threshhold. (I’m quite satisfied with every last component, thank you very much.) Building a computer for my sister is matter of analyzing what she’s going to use it for. I consider my sister (and my mom) to be very average computer users. They go online. They email. They peruse websites. My sister’s typically doesn’t spend more than five hours on my parent’s computer per week. My mom plays games, it is true. But nothing she does is particularly tasking in any way.

So what good is the multitasking power that dual-core processing promises? What good is the processing bandwidth that 64-bit computing promises? My sister will neither multitask, nor use any processor-intensive applications, let alone any application that would strain the integrated intel graphics. So what is the most taxing thing that my sister’s computer will be running? The operating system.

Some of you may remember what a horrible memory management system Windows 98 had. Some of you may STILL be running Windows 98! I found that, over time, the operating system “degraded”. Even if you closed all applications, it will still not run as fast as when you first got it. This is unacceptable. Moreover, I found it impossible to simply “leave my computer on” as I do now. I went entire semesters at Rutgers without restarting Lisa Electron. Windows XP has given us the stability we always made fun of Microsoft for never having. (The only reason I don’t leave Roxanne on is because I didn’t factor fan noise into my purchase. But, that’s another story.)

What am I saying? If buy a computer RIGHT NOW with XP Home or Pro, odds are you won’t have to replace it for a long time. I’m dead serious. Why would I want to replace an operating system that WORKS with an operating system that could possibly be incompatible with old programs or hardware? This is hardly an argument between MS-DOS 6 and Windows 3.11.

What will you miss by not upgrading to 64-bit computing? Well, consider what you shove into your computer. There’s the hardware aspect, and then the software aspect. Software written for a 64-bit machine will not work on a 32-bit machine anymore than trying to run 16-bit Windows on a jacked 8-bit system just won’t work. Hardware? Newer cameras/printers/gadgets may not have 32-bit drivers written for them. A driver is what tells your computer how to communicate with devices “outside the box”.

Of course, you have to consider the reverse. Upgrading to Windows x64 means virtual driver suicide. The drivers for most devices simply haven’t been written yet. Moreover, software to optimize 64-bit processing hasn’t been written yet. Remember, current 32-bit software will run on a 64-bit system, much like I can STILL get my old copy of Oregon Trail to run.

So, back to this computer I’m going to build for my sister. I’m leaning towards an AMD Sempron. I’ll do a performance/cost comparison later. I’ll find a motherboard with as little on it as possible. I have 8 USB ports on Roxanne, four in the front and four in the back. There is no way in hell I’m ever going to use all of them. I’d swear I have two more on that thing which has firewire on it. To be seen what use I have for firewire. (Tangenting again.)

Memory. Lisa Electron originally had 128 megs of RAM. Then again, she came preinstalled with the evil Windows Millenium. Bless my lucky stars I ran across a pyrated copy of XP Pro. (Roxanne has a legal copy. That’s right. I PAID for Windows. Bite me.) Let me tell you something: I multitask. Or, at the very least, I like having a lot of programs in the background. I’m notorious for never, ever closing AIM windows. And I’m using a version of AIM that has a nasty memory leak. (I refuse to upgrade because later versions look horrible and otherwise offer me no features I want. Ditto on WinAmp.) I also tend to keep Photoshop open at all times so I don’t have to load it when I right-click to edit something at random. I have Sims still open right now, too. You get the idea. This eats memory. I did this same shit on Lisa. Prior to getting a decent video card, my first upgrade to Lisa was 256 more RAM, bringing her to 384.

Let’s talk about my parent’s computer. It came with 256 megs of RAM. This seemed fine on the surface, but the way we use that computer, it didn’t cut it at all. Switching users made the poor Dell grind to a hault. I eventually got fend up, went online, and used my own money to buy a 512 stick, bringing the total to 768 megs of RAM. The extra memory killed all slowdowns and I’m now extremely liberal with what programs I leave open.

Very quickly, my minimum specs for my sister’s computer is clear. A cheaper Sempron, 512 megs of RAM. I hate integrated video, but odds are, neither she nor her boyfriend will do anything graphically intensive. Optical drives are cheap, I could easily give her two CD-RW/DVD drives. I’ve been pricing things, and if I’m lucky, I may be able to pull this all off, monitor included, for under 500 bucks. Depends. If I were building one for my mom, I’d get a cheap AGP video card, just to ensure she never has a video card bottleneck.

I get excited about these sorts of things, can you tell?

Let me plug AMD for a second. (Advanced Micro Devices.) My CPU is running at 2.01 Ghz. (I’ve tried downclocking it to 2 Ghz flat, but it refuses to. Ha ha.) My parent’s Pentium IV is running at around 2.2 Ghz. But don’t let the numbers fool you, Roxanne is noticeably faster than my parent’s computer. Why is this? That Pentium IV may be cranking out more clock cycles, but my Athlon 64 does more work per clock cycle, and thus, a faster computer. *snaps fingers* There’s a limit to how small you can make things. Take notice that (Alienware overclocked CPU’s aside) we have not crossed the 4 gigahertz threshold. CPUs are creating too much heat. This is why I believe AMD is flat-out better than Intel. They have been for a long time, but here is where making flat-out better chips will serve them well. AMD makes cooler chips that do more work. So why does Intel get all the attention? I’d go from tolerating to accepting Dell if they used AMD chips.

I’ll just continue babbling.

I don’t intend to upgrade to “64-bit computing” anytime in the near future. Windows x64 is still in beta. I’d rather wait until it’s fully entrenched before I start pushing buttons. I built Roxanne specifically so I could upgrade her. I intend to run her as long as possible, and then upgrade key components to keep her current. 64-bit capability is just there if the time is right. In four years time, I can get a video card that’s twice as powerful as the one I have, at less than I paid for the one I have. Easily. In four years time, adding two gigs of RAM to a system won’t sound so silly.

I want three gigs of RAM, what can I say?

Really, that’s all I’d need/want to do. I just hope socket 939 doesn’t become obsolete fast.

I really should play some graphics intensive games more often. My poor GeForce 6600 is bored with Sims and the Quake III engine of Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force. Which just reinforces my point: We’re going to continue using the same damn programs we’ve been using for years. I’M WRITING THIS IN NOTEPAD, despite the fact that I have a pyrated copy of Office XP.

I rest my case.