The next generation of desktop computers is coming, and here’s why it matters. New processors coming soon from Advanced Micro Devices and Apple suggest 64-bit computing will make its way to a desktop near you this year. But what does that really mean for you?
Are You Ready for 64-Bit Computing?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It’ll be a year at least before I even venture down this road for the desktop.
The only thing it’ll do is help bring the cost of 32bit down.
It means we can start waiting for 128 bit computers.
I look at it this way. There is so many people wondering why people would want a 64 bit, or saying they don’t need it. I wonder what it was like when the 16 bit to 32 bit transistion happened, I was to young to know. But I asume it was the same.
One shouldn’t say no one needs it. With it people will come up with new things to do. Part of me see’s in the next 2 years that there will be some new super home user apps that use the massive computing over head computers have now. Someone will realize that people have so much power in their home computer that there is a possiblilty for them to do some incredible programs with it. I hope to see it. I don’t like how there isn’t much use for the computering power we have. I like there ot be a continued use for more computer power in home computers.
I picked up a 64 bit system yesterday. For $40. Because a Sun UltraSPARC 1 is utterly obsolete. As are first generation 64 bit systems from just about everyone. Except for those companies who STILL haven’t shipped 64 bit systems.
The title for this story should be What took you guys so long?
Very doubtful that 128bit computers will come out in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way. Do you understand what 2^64 is
? Plus you also have to take into account the diminishing returns from such long crytical datapaths that you may fing in a 128bit ALU for example, you would have just enormous multipliers and registers, whereas 128bit operations may be a minimal amount of the overall computation, hence you are wasting resources, and making the overall system actually slower.
Rule of thumb in computer engineering: Make the commong case fast, 128bit ops are not nor will be the common case, so why bother? And no it is not the same as going from 16bit to 32bit, the magnitudes involved in the transition are just not comparable
.
Obviously the author doesn’t know that Windows isn’t the only operating system available for AMD chips. Is it so hard to go to a linux or *BSD vendor website to check if they are already working on an AMD64 version of their respective product ? For instance, according to NetBSD, the AMD64 port is ” fully functional”. Moreover it “will be a completely supported platform in the next … release”.
On the linux side, Mandrake 9.0 for Opteron was released months ago (March 13, 2003).
Like hc said in his post, one can pick up an old Sun (on Ebay probably) and use it as a 64-bit system.
I hope nobody will tell me that linux and the *BSD are server operating systems, not desktop OSes.
To the editors of magazines like PCWorld : stop wearing those thick Microsoft-tainted glasses of yours !
Except for larger addressing, I cant see that many advantages to 64 bits. Programs barely need to do intensive 64 bit INTEGER operations, the CPU buses are already 64 bits and the floating point unit on cpus is already 80/128 bits. Also SSE takes care of most important math operations.. Video and Audio dont need more than 32 bits for signal depth, etc. The article is a bunch of lies.
While software, like a fluid, expands to fill the shape of the container you put it in I think that the transition to 64-bit computers in the home will take much longer than the transtion from 16-bit to 32-bit did.
All of the “killer apps” for home and general computer users run just fine on 32 bit machines. I think that some real benefit for this class of users will have to be shown in order for people to make the transition.
If computer architects would concentrate on reducing I/O and memory-related bottlenecks I believe much more benefit would be realized.
Of course, I would never be caught saying that “32 bits ought to be enough for anybody.”
Remember those days where software migrating from 16-bit to 32-bit? Why those days take shorter and less resistence than now turning from 32-bit to 64-bit? I think the main reason is 16-bit computing happened too slow that those time was still under the 32-bit computing chip environment. Now is different, we had 64-bit chip ready and yet nothing was done for 64-bit computing software.
Maybe this is just another transistion period to get things in the right track, it will be that time to come and we shall see.
Hum, you seem to forget that the 386 was out in the mid 80s yet there was not a mass production OS for it that took full advantage of the 32bits til the 90s! (At least as far as MS is concerned). So it took over a decade for M$ to produce a 32bit OS for x86 after the introduction of the 386 with was 32bit x86.
There have been plenty of 64bit platforms for over a decade (granted none were x86, but still). NT ran in Alpha for years as 32bit, I believe… whilst Alpha was a true 64bit platform.
Now what will 64 bit mean for Joe User??? Will be able to send more “special” emails or enjoy better web-sites??? Nope! Will he/she be able to play a better Solitaire??? Nope….
Its a new marketting/evolution thing. Companies have to inovate from time to time to push stuff down the consumers throat…
So guess what: 32 bit has still a long life to live!
Wow,
that is one of the most well-reasoned and well-researched articles on the 64 bit issue I’ve read to date.
it’s about actually doubling the amount of data a CPU can process per clock cycle
Not true. Otherwise going to 64bit would double performance and we all know it doesn’t.
Better still, when you view a video file on a 64-bit desktop, you’ll see “a noticeable difference in speed,” he says, resulting in more frames per second and a more film-like playback.
Right so i can get better than reality?
Am I ready for 64bit?
Normally you will be told on this and other forums that people don’t even know/care what brand CPU is in their system. And now you ask these exact same people whether they are ready for 64bit? Who cares? You will get 64bit instead of 32bit for the same price, everything stays the same for the user — so *of course* everybody is ready. In fact, “noone” cares…
Right so i can get better than reality?
Something tells me you’re not viewing video at 10^45 FPS…
But in all seriousness, high-quality digital video is taxing on the processor and a larger data path would help a great deal. I’d like to see more offloading of this sort of thing to the GPU anyways, though.
“Video and Audio dont need more than 32 bits for signal depth, etc. The article is a bunch of lies.”
I may be wrong, but I think integer calculations on 24-bit audio data would benefit from having 64 bits available, so there is no risk of overflow.
The main advantage seems to be access to large memory spaces, though.
16-32bit transition was required as it bought more than just “bigger bitness”, it almost bought protected memory, >4MB addressing etc etc.
Most users will never need to have more than 4gigs of memory. Sure, the video guru will, however, in terms of Joe and Jane average, they won’t.
As for AMD64 and Windows XP, don’t expect Windows XP to be 64bit, it will be like MacOS 10.3/10.2.7, optimisations and that is about it.
btw, those who point to Windows NT on alpha, Windows NT was running in 32bit mode. If one were to run it, one would have to download a Firmware patch which would enabled Windows NT to run.
As for the server space, do people need to be reminded that it wasn’t until around 2 years ago when Compaq stopped selling VAX. When you start seeing WIDESPREAD 64bit adoption in the low end server space, then you should start wondering about it, and even then, what does a 64bit processor give you that a 32bit can’t?
People who say “oh I need 64bits” want not because of anything practical but because it has a status symbol attached. The fact that they can say, “look at me, I am running a 64bit processor.
This article is just another “everything will go smoother and more perfect” type of message. No useful information is given.
Nope. 64 bit makes sense. Why are some of you downplaying it?
I want 64 bits. I want a faster computer. What are you sticks in the mud thinking? OK so some Joe sixpack likes to type an email, or browse the web so I am supposed to think its fast enough?
How about a better multitasking environment? How about a faster boot time? I just think its progression, and thats a good thing. I remember buying my first PC ( I was a amiga guy before) and the salesman telling me they wouldnt increasse the front side bus (critical to speed with memory). He was wrong, I can know get it faster, intel makes a fsb (in theory) of 800 mhz.
From my point of view, as a laptop user primarily, I wonder if the processor at 64 bits will be faster then what I have now with a much less drain on the battery? Maybe?
“The advantage of 64 bits is it gives you a larger address space, which means it lets you address more memory,”
Say, What???
It is rather bold to say:
> Most users will never need …
Do you have any idea how long “never” is? Do you know what the future looks like 30, 50, 100 years from now?
> People who say “oh I need 64bits” want not because of
> anything practical but because it has a status symbol
> attached. The fact that they can say, “look at me, I am
> running a 64bit processor.
Actually some of us actually do things with our computers which require more than 4 GB RAM. Of course, as has already been pointed out, 64 bit is not new. All the high-end vendors can supply servers for the memory hungry. One thing these new offerings may bring is a more competetive market, and with that, lower prices.
Theorem of Linear speedup:
with a biger dictionary you can speedup your computations
“640 Kb ought to be enough for everyone.”
Uncle Bill didn’t know in 1981 what things would be like 22 years from then.
Now, 32 bit ought to be enough for everyone. But what about 20 years from now?
Surely, you do not need 64 bits for webbrowsing or e-mailing. But what if the electronic evolution comes up with something completely new for Joe Sixpack to do with his computer? With todays websites, 16 bit computers wouldn’t be enough for browsing them… So maybe you don’t need the 64 bits now, but when they’re there maybe great progress will be done…
I’m especially excited about the 3D graphics we will see a few years from now…
– Simon
Don’t know about you, but I was using 64-bit processors on a daily basis some 7-8 (yes, SEVEN/EIGHT) years ago.
It was the first incarnation of the DEC Alpha processor, running under OSF/1 (Digital Unix) and VMS OS’es.
And just a bit later, even on microsoft gear (NT4 for alpha)
So, where are the _news_ ??? why the heck should those hyped 64-bit processors be anything new? Or even the ‘next big thing’?
The only advantage I can see, is about the 64-bit AMD processors; but that’s just because of the excellent on-chip 32-bit compatibility layer. Not SOFTWARE emulation; can you hear me, Intel?
Crd
Greater than 4GB of RAM is great in theory. Trouble is those 2GB sticks are very expensive (>US$1000 each). So the average user isn’t going to spend thousands of dollars to buy 8GB of RAM. For a single cpu machine you need 4GB RAM sticks (2 RAM slots per CPU) if you want 8GB of RAM.
I think 64 bit will be ready for mainstream use when RAM is, say, $50-100 a 2GB stick.
Greater than 4GB of RAM is great in theory. Trouble is those 2GB sticks are very expensive (>US$1000 each). So the average user isn’t going to spend thousands of dollars to buy 8GB of RAM. For a single cpu machine you need 4GB RAM sticks (2 RAM slots per CPU) if you want 8GB of RAM.
I think 64 bit will be ready for mainstream use when RAM is, say, $50-100 a 2GB stick.
marc, I agree with you on the questions you asked and answered. But, I do think that 64 bit computing is going to end up being the standard (sometime in the unknown future :-), just as 32 bit is now. I think we’re at the real beginning of it now. For the vast majority of people, there is no need for 64 bit computing now, but it is the future and it is here.
Does Itanium now have 2 instruction sets built in, since there is no _software_ emulation for IA32 anymore ?
64 bit instructions take roughly twise the amount of caching. This is propably why Itanium really starts to fly with huge amount of cache.
So the bits count in the amount of instructions, but also in the lenght of a instruction.
Can I ask a question? How come I keep seeing reference everywhere to 8 GB of memory addressing with 64 bit CPUs. I see it in the posts here and I saw it in reference to the Apple G5. 32 bit CPUs can reference 4GB of memory, 64 bit does not mean twice the memory. A 64 bit CPU can, theoretically, address 18 million TERABYTES, if my math is correct (2^64).
Strange some people are fighting this. Sure, there are a lot of boxes that have no reason for this. I’m not going to update my p100 OpenBSD router/firewall which already moves data faster than my cable modem can. But for some people, this will be handy. I think this will change the gaming world.
And best of all, as has already been pointed out, high end 32bit systems will get cheaper. So if you think you don’t need 64 bit computers, then great, your computers just got cheaper. It’s kind of like the dual processor machine with SCSI that I just bought for $25, it’s called a SparcStation : )
-b
Stop whining about “Why would I ever need 64 Bit….?” Bla,bla…
Just try to keep your fancy full scope. Never dreamt of playing a movie-quality realtime rendered game on your desktop. Do you really think this technology is decades away? I don’t think so.
Multimedia is getting more and more important in the computing world. And 64Bit on the desktop is in my POV a logical step towards future multimedia applications!
I think the 8 gig number for now is just the practical limitation to how much Ram they can squeeze into a computer. Its unlikely for a while that anyone will actually go out and buy the 4 expensive 2gb sticks of ram that it would take to achieve that much. Besides, can you imagine how big your computer would have to be with current technology to allow you use all 18 million terrabytes of Ram?
marc said:
“Now what will 64 bit mean for Joe User??? Will be able to send more “special” emails or enjoy better web-sites??? Nope! Will he/she be able to play a better Solitaire??? Nope….”
I remember when the Pentium IV came out, I saw some Dell ads in a magazine.. “Now with Pentium4… makes your mp3 downloads faster!”
So yes, people will send more special emails with 64 bit computing, even if it’s not true!
I remember seeing that add along with other buzz word compliant clap-trap.
As for the AMD64, it isn’t the 64bit that makes it fast but the actual architecture, aka, Hypertransport, integrated memory bus, and a bloody big cache. That is what makes the AMD64 fast, not the fact that it is 64bit.
Dave asks about 64 bit addressing
A 64 bit address space, as you point out, provides 2^64 addresses. It can be very useful to have that much virtual memory, even if no one has anywhere close to that much physical memory. So, in practice, 64 bit processors usually have fewer address bits brought out to pins for accessing physical memory. And the motherboard may not use all of those, using only the ones needed to support the number of DIMM slots provided.
The 64 bit virtual memory is useful because you can things like map a large file into memory. It may not all fit into your physical memory at the same time, but using the OS VM system to handle the paging can be faster and simpler than doing it yourself with file I/O and seeks.
Video files can easily be 8GB long, or longer. The files on a DVD are usually limited to 1GB each because of 32 bit size limits. That’s not too bad a kludge for the final master, but a 64 bit VM address space surely makes editing the video easier.
As another example, databases often create sparse files. A table might allocate space for millions of entries, even if a much smaller number are actually used. Modern file systems allow for that, and only need blocks that are not empty. Mapping such a file into memory requires a large address space, but not much physical memory.
> If computer architects would concentrate on reducing I/O and memory-related bottlenecks I believe much more benefit would be realized.
The AMD64 implimentation does realize that. They aren’t directing the RAM through the northbridge anymore. That’s right 9.6GBits straight to your die.
Expect more realistic simulations, faster computations, and overall better computing out of 64-bit. I saw the AMD64 presentation at LanWar and it was absolutely amazing.
1. AMD Althlon and Opteron
2. Intel Itanium – and presumably a desktop version soon
3. IBM PPC 970 – Which both Apple and IBM will be marketing possibly for Linux Desktop (http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/03q2/ppc970-interview/ppc970-intervi…)
4. Of course there are still the SPARCS
IMO, with an over-crowded market maybe the smaller player, AMD, will take the fall. I read in a Business 2.0 interview that both Sanderson and Ruiz have put AMD’s future on the line w/ the new processors and they are short on cash reserves.
The issue here is this:
1) Moving more people to 64-bit will bring down the prices of larger memory chips.
2) It drops the prices of thos 64-bit processors (priced those SGI or Sun machines lately?)
3) We cannot predict the future. The 16 -> 32 bit transition facilitated a huge number of innovations.
It is rather irrelevant as to how it will allow you to email, browse, or start you box faster. I am a research scientist and it would be awesome to increase the number of 64-bit nodes in my cluster or the ability to outfit my graduate students with 64-bit workstations that don’t cost a fortune.
*off topic* I don’t understand this boot time arguement I see here on a lot of posts. Who care how long your machine takes to boot? Do you just sit around all day and reboot your machines? Someone please fill me in on this one. *end off topic*.
16-32bit transition was required as it bought more than just “bigger bitness”, it almost bought protected memory, >4MB addressing etc etc.
Um. Memory protection has absolutely nothing to do with word size. Intel introduced this feature in the 286 – a 16 bit CPU.
Yeah, right. All software will change, now that our computers can do 64bit integer math, and address more than 4GB of memory.
Strange that computers today boot slower than 10 years ago. That is not likely to change with future systems, especially if each new version of some mainstream OS (Windows, Linux, MacOS) is twice as big as its predecessor. How much did harddisks speed up during the last 20 years?
Also it shouldn’t be a new fact to anyone here, that processor capabilities roughly double every two years, while software doesn’t improve a bit. (people still code in C 😉 !!)
While most of today’s applications haven’t bumped up against the 32 bit wall and ok it’s important to prepare for the future. 64bits expand many hard limits to extreme numbers. It will take time for the hardware offerings to catch up and prices to be within reach, but those days are rapidly approaching. As with all significant technology shifts it can take time, but it means making the jump at some point. 64bits is now entering the mainstream and soon there will be more jumping than all those before. If you can’t see what to use the extra capabilities for then let you imagination soar. Others certainly are. Bring it on!
Intel chips have long been critisized for it’s lack of registers. It’s ironic that the Itanium corrects this by introducing over 328 registers in their EPIC architecture and yet Intel might miss the 64 bit party if they don’t act.
As the article states, Intel must have a plan that they are working on. I can’t seroiusly believe that they think that there isn’t a 64 bit desktop market for them. They are likely caught up in their own 32 bit success trapped between the two worlds.
Intel, get this message clear. It’s time to bring on the 64 bit offerings full speed! What are you waiting for Intel?
The new IBM PowerPC looks awesome, and I especially love its power requirements, as the computers I have now literally warm the room they’re in by about 20 degrees F. However, I don’t particularly care for Apple. Anyone know if it’s possible for a non-corporate customer to get an IBM PowerPC sans Macintosh, and say load Linux or NetBSD?
The first issue, which everyone recognizes is that people are now approaching the memory limit of 32-bit pointers. Until two months ago that never happened to me in practice. In the last month it has happened to me five times already. I’m just a very prolific writer. Just kidding. I am doing large scientific computing work, so I would run into it before users.
The real “need” for mass 64-bit computing will probably not be for a decade, just as the need for 32-bit computing wasn’t for a whole decade after it became available to the market. What will cause this massive need? Video is the first obvious case that comes to mind. How about live streaming HDTV quality movies into your computer? What about real time ray tracing quality 3D games with multi-gigabyte textures? How about simulated A.I. (ie they aren’t sentient) computer assistants? These and countless other ideas would require significantly higher memory sizes, bus bandwidths and processing speeds.
It sounds stupid doesn’t it? Who would want to stream HDTV quality video to their computer? Who would need to have a ray tracing quality rendering system on their desktop? In comparison try to imagine going back to 1993 and telling people that they would need computers to realtime NTSC video compression (TiVo) and would need a 3D accelerator card in their computer that could generate billions of polygons per second. That would probably have sounded equally ridiculous.
Strange that computers today boot slower than 10 years ago.
You act like computers is the only industry where this is a trend. I can’t fire up a space shuttle as quickly as the Wright Flyer, but which do you think is more useful?
Even gaming consoles boot slower, and they could throw away backwards compatibility and use any technology they want. The slowdown is mainly due to the move away from cartridges to cheaper, more efficient discs.
Finally, I find it strange that while complaining about bootup speed, you take a shot at c. What are you going to do, write a faster bootup OS in Java?
-b
Hi
ALAIK 64-bit cpus can transfer 64-bits of data simulatneously on their data bus, so it takes half the time to transfer two 32-bit ints on a 64-bit pc compared to a 32-bit pc. And in writing office apps, ofcourse, 32-bit ints are used frequently. So why it doesn’t have an effect on such apps?
Thanks.
whaaa,
You cannot say any of that, plus I don’t agree. How do we know what technologies will be around 10 years from now to create CPUs…so I can the forsee the need to go to 128bit CPUs; maybe even 10 years after the introduction of 128bit computing they will introduce 256bit CPUs. We do not know what the future of technology holds!
“*off topic* I don’t understand this boot time arguement I see here on a lot of posts. Who care how long your machine takes to boot? Do you just sit around all day and reboot your machines? Someone please fill me in on this one. *end off topic*. “
Can you tell me why we should even BE booting our computers anymore? Just because this is the way it’s always been (and boot times have increased over the years) does not make justification to keep it this way. I want my machine to be ready for me to use it three or four seconds after I hit that power button to turn it on. I also want it to be OFF 3 or 4 seconds after I hit the power button to turn it off.
The whole concept of booting is archaic and exists because of lack of proper planning and willingness to design differently (ie: “it’s been this way for all this time, why engineer a change if no one notices?”).
64 bit computing is more hyped than it deserves considering what the average computer user does with their system. Let’s see… I can now wait for web pages to load, and do my word processing at 64 bits instead of 32! Wow!
And then we have this detail…
Intel 2.2Ghz with 17 inch monitor from Dell: $499
Apple 1.6Ghz with no monitor: $1,999
Nope. Sorry Apple. Not until you realize that you can’t sell a personal computer for $2,000 in the 21st century.
Can you tell me why we should even BE booting our computers anymore?
Why should a machine be running when you aren’t using it ? Do the planet a favor and conserve its resources by saving energy instead of worring about uptime bragging rights.
It’s so typical of todays society that people can’t wait a couple of seconds to start wasting hours on the internet.
Turn the PC on/off like a TV? That would be nice…
“Turn the PC on/off like a TV? That would be nice…”
In the very early days of the Microcomputer, you could do that. For example, the original Commodore computers and the Apple II both had ROM based operating system. But of course, ROM based OSes had too many limitations for that to work very well, or for very long.
the standard x86-32bit has a mere 8 GP registers where only 6 can be used.
the opteron has 32 registers in 64 bit mode. the additional registers may boost performance by 30%. 3d games can put those registers to good use.
considering how much $ gamers spend on nvidia/ati, 64 bits has a bright future
Hey! What about DEC Alpha’s?
“Why should a machine be running when you aren’t using it ? Do the planet a favor and conserve its resources by saving energy instead of worring about uptime bragging rights.”
I don’t know, the way I see it, the faster we burn through our non-renewable resources, the sooner we’ll be forced to come up with and perfect renewable ones. Besides, when one uses power management properly, the computer does draw less power than when it’s fully operational. Certainly more than when it is off, but uptime is more than about bragging rights, uptime is a productivity thing.
Back to the “Do the planet a favor” thing, just remember that the Earth won’t be habitable in another thousand million years, and whatever we do or do not do to the environment today is absolutely irrelevant. Hell, it may well be irrelevant *now*. Do *yourself* a favor and enjoy life while it lasts. I for one can’t wait for that damned three seconds for this thing to boot up so that I can waste hours on the Internet ;^)
“I don’t know, the way I see it, the faster we burn through our non-renewable resources, the sooner we’ll be forced to come up with and perfect renewable ones.”
This has to be some of the dumbest logic I have ever seen.
What a bad article. So much BS.
I feel like the author must know absolutely nothing about computers.
“Panther, an updated 32-bit OS due out the end of this year, will have Jaguar-like 64-bit support. ”
This sentence completely confused me. Jaguar-like 64-bit support? Jaguar has no 64-bit support. Panther has hacked libraries that do some crazy shit that tricks programs into addressing 42-bits worth of memory (or up to 8GB on the G5). So… it will have Panther-like pseudo-64bit support.
128-bit computers? Not for a long time. If ever. More likely we’ll move to something completely different first. Or we’ll just start cramming lots of current-gen stuff into one smaller package as IBM and Sony have already begun work towards (with Intel and AMD working on similar ideas).
Besides, what needs to be 128-bit already is. SIMD and FP.
Moving to 64-bits is not very exciting. Except as a marketing tool.
It’s not bad, but it’s not exciting.
The Athlon 64 and Opteron are exciting, but not because they’re 64-bit.
“This has to be some of the dumbest logic I have ever seen.”
And what is your take on it? If you have something more interesting than what everyone else has to say, I’d love to hear it. Besides, my point of view is how events are likely to play out. If you think otherwise, you are living in a fantasy world, full of elves, talking dogs and where Linux is a mainstream OS ;p
“And what is your take on it? If you have something more interesting than what everyone else has to say, I’d love to hear it. Besides, my point of view is how events are likely to play out.”
Your point of view is not how events are likely to play out. Because sooner or later the oil companies themselves are going to realize that they need to invest in other technologies. Oil company CEOs and oil investors aren’t stupid. You can’t stake your entire company on a resource that is finite, and that some experts thing will run out in less than 50 years.
If the oil companies themselves want to survive, they are going to have to start investing in other fuel sources such as hydrogen fuel cells.
Furthermore, with your line of thinking, in 50 years, we won’t have a world left that anyone will want to live in because we have torn up every last bit of landscape where we think we can find fossil fuel.
Fossil fuel is a sinking ship. The oil companies know that. And they aren’t going to simply go down with it. They are going to diversify their investments into alternative fuel sources. Adapt or die. That’s how it works.
“If you think otherwise, you are living in a fantasy world, full of elves, talking dogs and where Linux is a mainstream OS ;p”
No. But you seem to have a very over-simplified view of economics and how business works.
“Oil company CEOs and oil investors aren’t stupid.”
You’re right, but the implementations will not be forthcoming as long as the oil flows.
“You can’t stake your entire company on a resource that is finite, and that some experts thing will run out in less than 50 years. ”
Look around you bud, they have and they do.
“If the oil companies themselves want to survive, they are going to have to start investing in other fuel sources such as hydrogen fuel cells. ”
Yes, they will, but for the moment (while oil supplies last), they have no real incentive to do more than token research.
“Furthermore, with your line of thinking, in 50 years, we won’t have a world left that anyone will want to live in because we have torn up every last bit of landscape where we think we can find fossil fuel. ”
It’s already hapening, and there is devestation to be sure. But do not underestimate the power of life to regenerate and recover from this Human-made disaster. The Earth has survived far, far worse in the past.
“Fossil fuel is a sinking ship. The oil companies know that. And they aren’t going to simply go down with it. They are going to diversify their investments into alternative fuel sources. Adapt or die. That’s how it works. ”
This is true, but nothing about this fact contradicts my POV.
“No. But you seem to have a very over-simplified view of economics and how business works.”
Oh, if only that were true! The bliss I would experience. You sir (or madam) have a very narrow view of the future. Of the factual thing you’ve stated, none contradict my own little theory, and the things you daid that do are utter non-sense.
Just to be on topic, perhaps if you had one of these wonderful 64 bit baddies it would expand your powers of prediction. Or perhaps not.
“Yes, they will, but for the moment (while oil supplies last), they have no real incentive to do more than token research.”
Sure they do. They are called “patents”, which I can gurantee you the oil companies want, and which other companies are working on. It’s a race to see who can come up with a viable system first. Whoever does gets to make billions while everyone else pays licensing fees to them for the technology. I can gurantee you the oil companies want to be the company making the the billions on patent licenses.
“It’s already hapening, and there is devestation to be sure. But do not underestimate the power of life to regenerate and recover from this Human-made disaster.”
I’m an ecologist. Don’t lecture me on the ability of the Earth to recover from human-made disasters. Or perhaps you aren’t aware of the fact that natural resource exploitation has PERMANENTLY reduced the carrying capacity of many ecosystems?
“You sir (or madam) have a very narrow view of the future. Of the factual thing you’ve stated, none contradict my own little theory, and the things you daid that do are utter non-sense.”
As opposed to you who has no view of the future? You take the attitude “while it;s going to be uninhabitable anyway in a thousand million years, so who cares?” That is utter nonsense.
What I havce said is sound both ecologically, and from a business point of view. Oil companies can’t keep riding their sinking ship. And they know that. And they also know they have to act before the fossil fuel runs out, otherwise someone else will beat them in the race to the patent office.
when my atari falcon run at 16mh, bad pc run at 100mh.
at this time aficionados said “speed of cpu is not the more important, good coding does the matters”. today this is the same story with the addresing range, people that said 64 bits is not a market are wrong, 64 bits is the futur and even if you are “punk(no futur)”, the futur is the market and it do not go to 16 bits.
“PERMANENTLY reduced the carrying capacity of many ecosystems”
I have to call BS on this one, Mr. Ecologist.
“They are called “patents”, which I can gurantee you the oil companies want, and which other companies are working on.”
Well duh. Part of the reason that these new technologies aren’t being utilized is *because* of those pattents. The guys who have them want to make money off them, and the oil industry isn’t exactly buying into it. they’ll let the things expire and by that time they’ll still be the only ones with the money to implement the tech. By that time there may well be the beginings of an oil shortage.
“otherwise someone else will beat them in the race to the patent office”
People are, but mostly these are people hoping to make millions, and are not the folks *with* the millions. When a particularly promising patent comes around, I am sure that the oil cos. buyem up for what may seem a fantastic amount to the guys and gals who did the work. Renewable energy isn’t rocket science, as I’m sure you’re well aware. There are a few ideas that are absolutely affordable and doable and have been for a while, but are not embraced due to the powers that be, and the momentum that’s been building since the internal combustion engine was invented. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s the way things are.
“it;s going to be uninhabitable anyway in a thousand million years, so who cares?”
That was never my point. My point was that what we do is irrelevant, and that it’s best to enjoy life. I do in fact care, but I also have something called faith. Faith in the ability for this world to take care of itself.
Perhaps you recall a time some 65 million years ago. What now is North America was set on fire. All of it. Two billion years ago, there were natural uranium reactors that really couldn’t have been good for life in the area. Guess what? Life’s pretty common in both places now, despite the past stresses in those environments.
Yeah, those are some rather extreme examples, but your mind seems more locked into convention than into reality.
“I have to call BS on this one, Mr. Ecologist.”
Why don’t you do some case studies in Africa and then come back and try to tell me it is BS.
“Part of the reason that these new technologies aren’t being utilized is *because* of those pattents.”
What patents? You meen the patents on the hydrogen fuel cell that don’t exist yet? It’s still a very open playing field.
“they’ll let the things expire and by that time they’ll still be the only ones with the money to implement the tech.”
So they make one or two minor changes to their patent, and then renew the patent. That’s how it works. If you play the game right, you can keep your patent going almost indefinately.
“I am sure that the oil cos. buyem up for what may seem a fantastic amount to the guys and gals who did the work.”
That worked for the oil companies in the 1960s when they bought up patents on fuel efficient carbeurators. But that was also a different ball game. It won’t work anymore.
“There are a few ideas that are absolutely affordable and doable and have been for a while, but are not embraced due to the powers that be, and the momentum that’s been building since the internal combustion engine was invented. This isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s the way things are.”
No, it is not the way things are, and yes, it is a conspiracy theory.
Examples:
Ethanol: It’s way to expensive to produce, even with the government subsidizing it. It’s not feasable as a complete replacement for fossil fuels because you need a lot of corn to extract relatively small amounts of ethanol.
Hydrogen: Sure the supply is virtually unlimitted. But the problem is that almost all of it is bound up with oxygen in the form of water. And seperating the hydrogen requires a great deal of energy, so mass producing hydrogen is very expensive. It also currently uses more energy than you get from doing it.
So yes, there are still many technical problems with mass production of alternative fuel.
“My point was that what we do is irrelevant, and that it’s best to enjoy life. I do in fact care, but I also have something called faith. Faith in the ability for this world to take care of itself.”
What we do is very relavent. And your faith is misplaced because human activity has so altered the biosphere, that no, the world cannot take care of itself anymore. For example, the wetlands we destroyed to build interstates are never going to come back. Even if we abandon the interstates. Think that’s not a problem? Tell that to the people in Indiana and Illinois next time they get flooded out of their homes. When we destroyed the wetlands, we destroyed the land that was capable of absorbing most of the water. Guess what? Concrete and asphalt don’t absorb water.
“Two billion years ago, there were natural uranium reactors that really couldn’t have been good for life in the area.”
These reactors were also hundreds of feet underground and encased in granite. In otherwords, they probably produced less surface radiation than a containment building at a nuclear power plant today.
Furthermore, 2 billion years ago, the only life that existed was the prokaryotes, which can survive doses of radiation unscathed that would be fatal to more complex organisms.
“Perhaps you recall a time some 65 million years ago. What now is North America was set on fire. All of it.”
No, all of North America was NOT set on fire. But this event did cause one of the largest mass extintctions in the history of the earth, and also caused the end of the Cretaceous period.
But guess what? Studies have shown that species are disappearing from the Earth today at an alarming rate. A rate faster than they were 65 million years ago. In fact, studies have shown that we have entered the greatest period of mass extinction in the history of the Earth. And do you know what is causing it? Human activity. There are no asteroids or comets to blame for this one.
“Yeah, those are some rather extreme examples, but your mind seems more locked into convention than into reality.”
Those extreme examples also fall apart when examined closely, especially the natural reactor one.
But even so, those extreme examples pale in comparision to the mass extinction period we are in today.
“Why don’t you do some case studies in Africa and then come back and try to tell me it is BS. ”
I admit, I’ve done none, but I have read many.
“You meen the patents on the hydrogen fuel cell that don’t exist yet?”
Come now, these things are only marginally older than batteries. They’ve been around for a very long time. Any patents on the things, excepting any insanely obvious ones from the states have long ago expired.
“No, it is not the way things are, and yes, it is a conspiracy theory. ”
In your backwards little world perhaps
“Ethanol: It’s way to expensive to produce”
It’s not a lack of the appropriate technology here, it’s the market that’s preventing the economical use of the fuel. (Going back to the old “Powers that be” and “momentum” things
.
“Hydrogen: Sure the supply is virtually unlimitted. But the problem is that almost all of it is bound up with oxygen in the form of water. And seperating the hydrogen requires a great deal of energy, so mass producing hydrogen is very expensive. It also currently uses more energy than you get from doing it. ”
I agree with you there. I never claimed Hydrogen as a world ready energy source.
“And your faith is misplaced because human activity has so altered the biosphere, that no, the world cannot take care of itself anymore”
Yes, we are causing species to go extinct faster than we have record of nature doing the same. But here’s where I’m gonna have to ask you to show me some credentials, because if you really want me to believe that what we are doing is any more dramatic than what has happened countlesss times before, I’m gonna need to see them. This is evolution. Pure and simple. The weak will perish, and the well adapted will live on, diversify and recolonize the shattered lands.
“These reactors were also hundreds of feet underground and encased in granite. In otherwords, they probably produced less surface radiation than a containment building at a nuclear power plant today. ”
As water was required for the functioning of the reactors, it is unlikely that they were completely separate from the environment. Although some fission would take place without a moderator, a self-sustaining chain reaction isn’t likely for any amount of time without one.
“Furthermore, 2 billion years ago, the only life that existed was the prokaryotes, which can survive doses of radiation unscathed that would be fatal to more complex organisms. ”
There is some debate about when eukaryotes as we know them arose. They are generally believed to have evolved between 2 thousand million and 1.5 thousand million years ago. It is more likely that they were around longer than 1.5 billion years, but as I said, still up for debate. BTW, are you a five kingdom man, or three? As for the multi-cellular organisms not existing then, you’ve no argument here. And yes, some bacteria are far more resistant to radiation than say we could ever be.
“No, all of North America was NOT set on fire.”
Egads man! Check out the angle at which that mountain came at us! North America most certainly *was* set on fire! Read up on the distribution of soot in the K/T Boundary before you say anything more on this particular topic. In Northa America the soot is thickest, and more or less universally distributed.
“But guess what? Studies have shown that species are disappearing from the Earth today at an alarming rate. A rate faster than they were 65 million years ago. In fact, studies have shown that we have entered the greatest period of mass extinction in the history of the Earth. And do you know what is causing it? Human activity. There are no asteroids or comets to blame for this one. ”
No argument here.
“Those extreme examples also fall apart when examined closely, especially the natural reactor one. ”
Oh, I don’t think so, but either one of us would be a fool if we truely thought that we knew any of this with absolute certainty. AT any rate, I for one found this to be a fun little chat, and as I had to race back to my old university textbooks as well as do a few quick checks on the Internet to reaffirm my faith in my own memory, it has been enlightening.
“This is evolution. Pure and simple. The weak will perish, and the well adapted will live on, diversify and recolonize the shattered lands.”
This is actually a very common misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution though. Because the well adapted do NOT always live on. In fact, it is possible for run-away selection to actually cause a species to go extinct.
That could very well happen in our case. For example, our adaptive brains allowed us to come up with antibiotics. But that same technology also caused the evolution of super bacterias, which are multi-drug resistant.
On top of that, conservation biology is a very new science. It is less than 50 years old. Our understanding of how various species are dependant on other species is not very good at this point. And yes, humans are dependant on many other species for survival, in multiple ways. Not just biologically, but economically as well. In fact in some countries, the very economic survival of the country depends on tourism dollars generated by their wildlife. if those animals go extinct, the country goes bankrupt. The interdendancies here are incredibly complex, and it would probably be best if we took the road of caution until we understand this better.
So yes, in the case of humans, the fact that we are so well adapted that we can out-compete all other species in our ecosystem could ultimately be our own downfall.
“BTW, are you a five kingdom man, or three?”
Your textbooks are outdated. Modern biologists generally recognize seven kingdoms. And I go by the seven kingdom system.
“It is more likely that they were around longer than 1.5 billion years, but as I said, still up for debate.”
Probably around 1.8 billion years ago. But even then, we are talking about very simple multi-celled organisms. Simpler even than the cockroach. And cockroaches also can survive megadoses of radiation that would be fatal to humans, or other more complex organisms. There is probably some truth to the idea that if there were an all out nuclear war, the world would still have cockroaches, even if they were the only species left.
“I for one found this to be a fun little chat, and as I had to race back to my old university textbooks as well as do a few quick checks on the Internet to reaffirm my faith in my own memory, it has been enlightening.”
Well, yes. It has been interesting.
“That could very well happen in our case. For example, our adaptive brains allowed us to come up with antibiotics. But that same technology also caused the evolution of super bacterias, which are multi-drug resistant. ”
This is still evolution at work, just one in which we are the weak.
“Your textbooks are outdated. Modern biologists generally recognize seven kingdoms. And I go by the seven kingdom system. ”
I’m a three kingdom guy myself, eubacteria, archea and eukarya. I have yeat to see evidence that more are required. When you look at life at the molecular level, there are only the three major lineages.
“And cockroaches also can survive megadoses of radiation that would be fatal to humans, or other more complex organisms.”
They are however sterile, and very short lived after such raditaion exposure.
“So yes, in the case of humans, the fact that we are so well adapted that we can out-compete all other species in our ecosystem could ultimately be our own downfall. ”
No arguments here.