«

Hey gang,

I am just curious, on your experience, with using 64 bit Internet Explorer,
and Windows Media Player.

Do you see any significant difference, in using the above versus their 32
bit counterparts?




--
Don

Yes.
The web is not ready for 64-bit, so many add-ons like Flash will not work.

Otherwise, no.

"Don" <> wrote in message
news:CC0FC098-CE2C-4D35-9B8D-...
> Hey gang,
>
> I am just curious, on your experience, with using 64 bit Internet
Explorer,
> and Windows Media Player.
>
> Do you see any significant difference, in using the above versus their 32
> bit counterparts?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Don
>
>
>

There's also no Java support for IE 64-bit yet, only for IE 32-bit.
I am not sure about the activeX controls, whether they would work or not.
Carlos

"Mark H" wrote:

> Yes.
> The web is not ready for 64-bit, so many add-ons like Flash will not work.
>
> Otherwise, no.
>
> "Don" <> wrote in message
> news:CC0FC098-CE2C-4D35-9B8D-...
> > Hey gang,
> >
> > I am just curious, on your experience, with using 64 bit Internet
> Explorer,
> > and Windows Media Player.
> >
> > Do you see any significant difference, in using the above versus their 32
> > bit counterparts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Don
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I don't think so because isn't that why WU requires 32bit IE?

"Carlos" <> wrote in message
news:1FC4C40D-2946-48EC-A86C-...
> There's also no Java support for IE 64-bit yet, only for IE 32-bit.
> I am not sure about the activeX controls, whether they would work or not.
> Carlos
>
> "Mark H" wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>> The web is not ready for 64-bit, so many add-ons like Flash will not
>> work.
>>
>> Otherwise, no.
>>
>> "Don" <> wrote in message
>> news:CC0FC098-CE2C-4D35-9B8D-...
>> > Hey gang,
>> >
>> > I am just curious, on your experience, with using 64 bit Internet
>> Explorer,
>> > and Windows Media Player.
>> >
>> > Do you see any significant difference, in using the above versus their
>> > 32
>> > bit counterparts?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Don
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

I don't think the 'web' cares about 'bitness'. Sun, Macromedia and Mac
obviously does - I suspect it is largely because of ActiveX?


Tony. . .


"Carlos" <> wrote in message
news:1FC4C40D-2946-48EC-A86C-...
> There's also no Java support for IE 64-bit yet, only for IE 32-bit.
> I am not sure about the activeX controls, whether they would work or not.
> Carlos
>
> "Mark H" wrote:
>
> > Yes.
> > The web is not ready for 64-bit, so many add-ons like Flash will not
work.
> >
> > Otherwise, no.
> >
> > "Don" <> wrote in message
> > news:CC0FC098-CE2C-4D35-9B8D-...
> > > Hey gang,
> > >
> > > I am just curious, on your experience, with using 64 bit Internet
> > Explorer,
> > > and Windows Media Player.
> > >
> > > Do you see any significant difference, in using the above versus their
32
> > > bit counterparts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Don
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

Ok, buddies.
Time for both of you to learn something new.
Try to view this page:
http://www.upshot.com/login/javatest...avavmtest.html
in both IE-32 and IE-64.
In IE-32 you will see a spinning (Java) triangle.
In IE-64 you will see a red "x".
See what I mean?
There is no Java (Sun) support yet for IE-64.
There exists Java x64 but it still doesn't support IE-64.

Carlos
"Tony Sperling" <> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias news:%...
>I don't think the 'web' cares about 'bitness'. Sun, Macromedia and Mac
> obviously does - I suspect it is largely because of ActiveX?
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
> news:1FC4C40D-2946-48EC-A86C-...
>> There's also no Java support for IE 64-bit yet, only for IE 32-bit.
>> I am not sure about the activeX controls, whether they would work or not.
>> Carlos
>>
>> "Mark H" wrote:
>>
>> > Yes.
>> > The web is not ready for 64-bit, so many add-ons like Flash will not
> work.
>> >
>> > Otherwise, no.
>> >
>> > "Don" <> wrote in message
>> > news:CC0FC098-CE2C-4D35-9B8D-...
>> > > Hey gang,
>> > >
>> > > I am just curious, on your experience, with using 64 bit Internet
>> > Explorer,
>> > > and Windows Media Player.
>> > >
>> > > Do you see any significant difference, in using the above versus
>> > > their
> 32
>> > > bit counterparts?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Don
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>