«

Carnations wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:20:53 -0600, impossible wrote:
>
>> Perhaps. But Larry D'Loserites like you are all about the mystical
>> powers of vaporware. To prove your point you'd actually have to
>> demonstrate that some really existing 64-bit applications is
>> better/performs better than its 32-bit counterpart. How about it,
>> ConMan. Can you?
>
> I fail to see why 64bit applications should perform "better" than
> their 32bit counterparts - the 64bit OS uses hardware with greater
> addressing capability, and 64bit applications therefore have that
> advantage. I can't think of any other advantage that users could have
> by using 64bit hardware.
>
Potentially the data path could be 64bits which would double the
peripheral data transfer rates. However it is my understanding that
present '64 bit' motherboards have a 32 bit wide data path due to chip
limitations. I think I read that somewhere.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.

Carnations wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:31 -0600, impossible wrote:
>
>> Greater memory access is the **only** advantage today of a 64-bit
>> os. For that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to
>> Windows 7 64-bit with 12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my
>> 32-bit desktop applications -- including IE8 and Flash Player --
>> will all perform better.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed it, but 32bit applications can only
> manipulate up to 4gb of data at one time.
>
Well, they can't *manipulate* it, they can only *address* it, that is,
use bits of it. But the underlying 64 bit OS can address more, so it can
keep more that 4GB of 32 bit apps in RAM, thereby making it a lot faster
to switch. A 32 bit OS can keep less than 4GB of apps in RAM. However I
think that more than 4GB of 32 bit apps is a bit of a stretch, I'll give
you that.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:26:20 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> Carnations wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:31 -0600, impossible wrote:
>>
>>> Greater memory access is the **only** advantage today of a 64-bit os.
>>> For that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to Windows 7
>>> 64-bit with 12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my 32-bit desktop
>>> applications -- including IE8 and Flash Player -- will all perform
>>> better.
>>
>> In case you hadn't noticed it, but 32bit applications can only
>> manipulate up to 4gb of data at one time.
>>
> Well, they can't *manipulate* it, they can only *address* it, that is,
> use bits of it. But the underlying 64 bit OS can address more, so it can
> keep more that 4GB of 32 bit apps in RAM, thereby making it a lot faster
> to switch. A 32 bit OS can keep less than 4GB of apps in RAM. However I
> think that more than 4GB of 32 bit apps is a bit of a stretch, I'll give
> you that.

how many desktop applications do you need to have running at the same time that would cause you to
require 12gb of RAM installed just to use your desktop computer normally?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:01:58 +1300, Richard wrote:

>> But NOT if you chose not to install the 32bit compatible libraries.
>
> Windows comes with them, so it is a non issue for internet explorer and
> silverlight on that platform.

But what if you don't WANT to have them installed?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

Carnations wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:01:58 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>>> But NOT if you chose not to install the 32bit compatible libraries.
>> Windows comes with them, so it is a non issue for internet explorer and
>> silverlight on that platform.
>
> But what if you don't WANT to have them installed?

Then dont use internet explorer on windows.

Why does it matter if you install them or not?

Carnations wrote:

> how many desktop applications do you need to have running at the same time that would cause you to
> require 12gb of RAM installed just to use your desktop computer normally?

Adobe products will use whatever you have and then some

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:38:55 +1300, Richard wrote:

>> how many desktop applications do you need to have running at the same
>> time that would cause you to require 12gb of RAM installed just to use
>> your desktop computer normally?
>
> Adobe products will use whatever you have and then some

Well, I suppose if you're using Photoshop to produce a poster 4m high x 12m long then you'll certainly
need all the RAM available. but you'd be unlikely to be running anything else on that computer at the
time, and you'd be unlikely to be doing that on a home computer - more likely on a work computer, and
more likely on a Mac.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 01:38:12 +1300, Richard wrote:

> Carnations wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:01:58 +1300, Richard wrote:
>>
>>>> But NOT if you chose not to install the 32bit compatible libraries.
>>> Windows comes with them, so it is a non issue for internet explorer
>>> and silverlight on that platform.
>>
>> But what if you don't WANT to have them installed?
>
> Then dont use internet explorer on windows.
>
> Why does it matter if you install them or not?

I'm talking about not wanting _32bit compatible libraries_ installed. Do Windows admins not have the
option of not installing those?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Jan 1, 8:58 pm, Carnations <Beauti...@Carnations.com> wrote:

> I fail to see why 64bit applications should perform "better" than their 32bit counterparts...

(We often get this 64 vs. 32 bit argument in nz.comp, and I've not
seen this point raised here, so I'm leaping in with it somewhat
arbitrarily here.)

Using a large address space, much larger than the hardware addressable
memory, can be used for different programming paradigms. An early
such approach was mapping files (f.ex. mmap) instead of the open,
read, write stuff, and another doing communication that way. Later,
one maps resources on the internet into one's address space. Let the
OS worry about protocols and APIs and security, just do stuff with
memory, or some abstraction like objects. Or, imagine a functional,
lazy evaluation view of the universe.

It's not necessarily a better way, and it can break the Unix
everything-is-a-file concept. But, for some applications, it can be
vastly simplifying, and for some IO bound tasks getting the virtual
memory system to do all the IO makes them much faster.

I'm sure there's much more eloquent and useful descriptions of these
ideas around, this is off the top of my head. I suppose only big
servers use these approaches presently, and I suppose not many of them
use 32 bit addressing.

Regards, John

Carnations wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:26:20 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Carnations wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:31 -0600, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greater memory access is the **only** advantage today of a 64-bit os.
>>>> For that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to Windows 7
>>>> 64-bit with 12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my 32-bit desktop
>>>> applications -- including IE8 and Flash Player -- will all perform
>>>> better.
>>> In case you hadn't noticed it, but 32bit applications can only
>>> manipulate up to 4gb of data at one time.
>>>
>> Well, they can't *manipulate* it, they can only *address* it, that is,
>> use bits of it. But the underlying 64 bit OS can address more, so it can
>> keep more that 4GB of 32 bit apps in RAM, thereby making it a lot faster
>> to switch. A 32 bit OS can keep less than 4GB of apps in RAM. However I
>> think that more than 4GB of 32 bit apps is a bit of a stretch, I'll give
>> you that.
>
> how many desktop applications do you need to have running at the same time that would cause you to
> require 12gb of RAM installed just to use your desktop computer normally?
>
That was my point, at the end. I don't know what the OP wants to keep in
his 12GB RAM. XP (32 bit) will happily run a few like IE and Flash
Player in a couple of GB without swapping.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.