EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 597
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22476 Posts
On March 27 2017 02:47 SoSexy wrote: Why is x64 64 bit but x86 is 32? Why didn't they call it x32? Because of the 8086, 286, 386, 486, 586 line of processors which were 32 bits. Why they were named that I don't know. Edit:Typo | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
The reason for this naming convention seems rooted in internal Intel history. Their first 8-bit chipset was the 8008, and the first upgrade the 8080. I guess it makes as much sense as going 1, 2, 360, One. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22476 Posts
On March 27 2017 17:36 AbouSV wrote: Still, that would be x68, not x86, doesn't it? woops typo, meant 86 ^^ | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On March 27 2017 02:54 Gorsameth wrote: Because of the 8086, 286, 386, 486, 586 line of processors which were 32 bits. Why they were named that I don't know. Edit:Typo 8086/80186/80286 were still 16bits. 80386/80486/80586 were 32bits. All were based on the same core processor instruction set from Intel (x86) ; even if it has changed over time, it has kept the same basis. x64 (x86-64) is an extension of the x86 instructions for managing 64bits memory, first introduced by AMD (AMD64) then copied/adapted by Intel (IA-64). So basically the 86 comes from Intel, based on its internal product naming, the 64 was forced for marketing reasons following AMD's lead. Since AMD and Intel somewhen between two lawsuits had agreed to share patents, K6/K7 from AMD were x86 and all recent processors from Intel/AMD are compatible x64 (instruction sets are close enough that différences can be managed at compilation time). So for most purposes in a PC world, x86 means everything 32bits and x64 everything 64bits. | ||
|
greenelve
Germany1392 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
greenelve
Germany1392 Posts
| ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9319 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12122 Posts
On April 01 2017 13:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: why do people always go nuts when things transition from being free to costing money? Every time I've seen something like that people seem to overreact and go insane. Because they then have to make a choice if something is worth their money on top of their time. If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do. Don't know why that is how humans work. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On April 01 2017 14:02 Yurie wrote: Because they then have to make a choice if something is worth their money on top of their time. If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do. Don't know why that is how humans work. That analogy is pretty backwards. Maybe better analogy is how We pay taxes to have all the free infrastructure running? | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
or Because they don't realize "free" means "you don't have the choice to not pay for it." | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On April 01 2017 22:58 Cascade wrote: That analogy is pretty backwards. Maybe better analogy is how We pay taxes to have all the free infrastructure running? Carbon tax is a real thing. As are credits. How clean the air is definitely is something people pay for. But we don't say "taxes for the air you breath" we say "environmental regulations" You know who complains about those regulations? The people paying for it. If those regulations were shifted to the taxpayer, taxpayers become the new anti-environment crowd. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
Would you have preferred one if you had the opportunity (since I'm confident 99%+ didn't go to one)? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On April 02 2017 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Carbon tax is a real thing. As are credits. How clean the air is definitely is something people pay for. But we don't say "taxes for the air you breath" we say "environmental regulations" You know who complains about those regulations? The people paying for it. If those regulations were shifted to the taxpayer, taxpayers become the new anti-environment crowd. No need to make this political... Original post was about "when things transition from being free to costing money". Comment was "If you got directly charged for good air quality you would likely get mad. Which is why we have taxes on carbon and other releases, making you pay for it with every other purchase you do." Which requires quite some roundabout argument to match up with the original post. I think an analogy should be about something being produced at a cost, handed to people seemingly free, but actually charged for in a different way. Carbon tax doesn't fit that. The free delivery would be fresh air, but it's not like it's produced at a cost. Fresh air is the default, and they charge extra for ruining it. That extra cost is then passed on to people consuming carbon-producing products, but it's not like that extra cost is funding fresh air production. The air is fresher because of these taxes, as they reduce how much of these products are produced in the first hand. But it's not the taxes pushed onto the customers that pay for the fresh air. Independently of your thoughts on carbon taxes otherwise, you have to agree that it's not a great analogy? And that taxes paying for any infrastructure (such as building roads or whatever) is a more direct case of getting something seemingly for free, but you're paying for it at a different point. | ||
| ||
