• MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Issue 2038 will be easier to fix because many systems are already 64-bit, as 32-bit systems could only handle 4 GB of RAM, and programs need more RAM.

    The only issue would be critical issues that run on 32-bit systems and must be fixed before that date.

    • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      The only issue would be critical issues that run on 32-bit systems and must be fixed before that date.

      So, many banks and government agencies which still run on mainframes…

    • setsubyou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      32-bit systems could only handle 4 GB of RAM

      I don’t understand why people always say that. Pentium Pro could handle 64 GB even though it was a 32 bit CPU. It had a 36 bit address bus. Later models are the same.

      • Flatfire@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 days ago

        People say it because it was a Windows limitation, not a computing limitation. Windows Server had support for more, but for consumers, it wasn’t easily doable. I believe there’s modern workarounds though. The real limit is how much memory a single application can address at any given time.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      What does a 64-bit system and 4GB RAM have to do with using 64bit timestamps?

      32bit systems can use 64bit values without issue. In fact, even an 8bit system can handle 256bit values or even longer ones without issue.

      The bittiness of a CPU and its address space have nothing to do with the length of usable data unless you end up with data longer than the RAM volume (and even then there’s swap).