7

[Heywood Jablowme]

"Nil" <rednoise@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D79242A23676nilch1@130.133.4.11...
> On 15 May 2010, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in
> alt.windows7.general:
>
>> Some might say, practically 2^32 ~ 4 billion times as good....
>
> Wow, that's really good! I gotta get me somma that. Everybody knows
> that if a little is good, more is better.

You haven't met my ex-wife.

A little is bad. More is worse.

 

[Heywood Jablowme]

"Death" <death@rottingcorpses.x-x> wrote in message
news:4beebd86@news.x-privat.org...
> Niels Baekmann wrote:
>
>> 64 bit better than 32 bit ?
>
> 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 is better, if that's your lucky number.
> 4,294,967,296 is smaller.
>
I was so close. 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 is my lucky number. Off by 1.

 

[igor]

"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hsrivp$e4n$1@news.albasani.net...
>> It's not a matter of better. It's a matter of fit. 32 for 32 bit
>> processor, 64 for 64 bit processor. That all. 32 will run on a 64 bit but
>> why do that if you have a choice? 64 will NOT run on a 32.
>>
>> --
>> LSMFT
>
> LSMFT=Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco???
>

LSMFT = Let's Screw My Finger's Tired . . . ;o)