Talk:64-bit computing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 64-bit computing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Vital article

Computing: Software C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by .

When?

It would be good if statements like this

Currently, most proprietary x86 software is compiled into 32-bit code, with less being also 
compiled into 64-bit code (although the trend is rapidly equalizing)

were dated so the reader knows when "Currently" was.

Symbolics

I notice that there is no mention of the MIT spinoff Symbolics which was a 64 bit system.RichardBond (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC) RichardBond (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which Symbolics machines were 64-bit, and in what sense were they 64-bit? 64-bit address space? 64-bit arithmetic? ... Guy Harris (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linux on the timeline

I think the timeline would be better if it included a mainstream Linux distro as an example of 64-bit first appearing in OS. Ubuntu's "Wart Warthog" in 2004 had an AMD64 edition, but it's not been recommended as the primary install until 2012 ("Quantal Quetzal", 12.10); before that there were problems with things like Adobe Flash that meant Canonical recommended users to stick with a 32-bit edition. I digress. Pbhj (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency with use of 'Exabyte / Exbibyte' term or its equivalency

I've notice the following two sentences stating somewhat conflicting information:

In the introduction paragraph:
Hence, a processor with 64-bit memory addresses can directly access 2⁶⁴ bytes (=16 exabytes) of byte-addressable memory.
In "Limits of processors":
In principle, a 64-bit microprocessor can address 16 EiBs (16 × 10246 = 2⁶⁴ = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes, or about 18.4 exabytes) of memory.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something here, but seems to me that 2⁶⁴ == 2⁶⁴, bytes are bytes, exabytes are exabytes. Same values, same units and thus the final result should have the same value if the units are same. Either both are ~18.4 Exabytes (EB), or 16 Exbibytes (EiB), something else? As the byte unit is the common ground for both Magnitude systems (1000 vs 1024), 2⁶⁴ == 18446744073709552000 == 16 * 1024⁶ ≈ 18.4 × 1000⁶ ≈ 18.4 × 10¹⁸, then the first sentence was probably meant to use exbibyte instead of exabyte. Mainly, 16 Exbibytes ≈ 18.4 Exabytes. However for consistency, the values should be changed and use the same term. Comments? Joedf (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what WP:COMPUNITS dictates here. Guy Harris (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Others will be moved to be in line with this one. — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

64-bit computing → 64-bit – Consistent with other "n-bit" articles. WP:COMMONNAME plus WP:TITLECON outweigh WP:NOUN. (Tried to request a technical but quickly withdrawn after finding out the previous discussion.) Nemoschool (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "64-bit" is an adjective describing something that has 64 bits. I would support moving all the articles to "n-bit architecture", per the lede, which namedrops computer architecture._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose – fix the other ones instead. Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.