That was no confusion - I was talking about major operating systems like Windows and OS/2. With 386 code, they could provide better multitasking and crash stability, no matter how you put it.
The difference between 16-bit and 32-bit was added features. There was so much focus on processor capabilities, that customers wanted the newest processor on the market.
The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is unrecognizable by most desktop users, and, in fact, they really don't care. There is no longer focus on processor capabilities, and people have no idea whether it was a Pentium 1,2 or 3 they have in their PC, they just remember the clock speed. The naming has much to do with it: Pentium, Celeron, Athlon, Duron, Crusoe. And with Linux being cross-platform, PowerPC and other chips/computers are also mixed into the discussion. Only nerds have an overview today.
It is true, that the term "64-bit" sounds better than "32-bit", but I don't believe that the market is stupid enough to ignore performance measurements. And the question is: which will be faster to run 32 bit apps, the 64-bit AMD processor or the 32-bit Pentium. And what will the price tag be?
By the way: thin clients, small legacy-free computers and consoles are taking over the world... My Palm IIIc has a Motorola processor and the thin clients we use have Cyrix processors. The most expensive processor in my primary home computer is from NVidia. I would guess that my cell phone uses a processor from Atmel. In fact, I really don't know whether the computer, I am sitting at right now, uses Intel or AMD... who cares. |
