«

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:54:29 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

> Sweetpea wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:12:24 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 12:20 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>> So much for Microsoft trumpeting the joys of 64-bit operating
>>>> systems.
>>>>
>>>> <http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/why-microsoft-isnt-work...>
>>>>
>>> who cares? (apart from you?)
>>>
>>> 64 bit Windows operating systems run 32 bit applications like IE just
>>> fine
>>
>> Users can only run 32bit programs on 64 bit operating systems if those
>> 64bit operating systems provide 32bit runtime libraries in addition tot
>> he 64bit libraries - effectively needing 2 versions of the same OS
>> installed.
>>
>> So, in actual fact, NO a 32bit program CANNOT run on a 64bit OS without
>> a 32bit runtime environment being installed.
>>
>> Micro$oft clearly thinks that kludge is superior to biting the bullet
>> and properly migrating to a clean 64bit environment.
>>
>> LOL - this is little more than a rerun of the 16bit/32bit Windows
>> bullshit that micro$oft claimed was a 32bit operating system!
>>
> This is exactly the same on Linux.

Really?

I have a 64bit clean environment. Even the Flash and Java plugins are 64bit. And I don't have any Micro
$oft software installed.

BTW, have you come across a CMS called SilverStripe? It's very good and looks like its heading in the
direction of being a Sharepoint killer!


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

In message <>, Gordon wrote:

> It is 64 bit operating system, and like all 64 bit OS it can handle way
> more than 3.something GB of memory.
>
> I await the how is that useful response

Did you know that, on Linux, there’s a bit more to 64 bits than that?

Sweetpea wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:51:05 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>> The only thing I have on here that is 64 bit is photoshop.
>>
>> Everythign else is 32, and there is no way I could do what I do on a 32
>> bit machine with only 2.something gigs available for all the apps.
>>
>> 64 bit means each app gets its own 2 gigs, work better, smoother, less
>> swapping.
>
> Sounds like you've been ripped off if you don't have 64bit applications available to you!
>
Sigh! 32 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, memory available for apps, approx
2.7GB. 64 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, almost 8GB available for apps.

Regardless of whether or not they are 32 bit apps or 64 bit. (OK, some
architecture effects reduce that a bit).

Cheers,

Cliff

--

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

Sweetpea wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:54:29 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Sweetpea wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:12:24 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 19, 12:20 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>>> So much for Microsoft trumpeting the joys of 64-bit operating
>>>>> systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/why-microsoft-isnt-work...>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> who cares? (apart from you?)
>>>>
>>>> 64 bit Windows operating systems run 32 bit applications like
>>>> IE just fine
>>> Users can only run 32bit programs on 64 bit operating systems if
>>> those 64bit operating systems provide 32bit runtime libraries in
>>> addition tot he 64bit libraries - effectively needing 2 versions
>>> of the same OS installed.
>>>
>>> So, in actual fact, NO a 32bit program CANNOT run on a 64bit OS
>>> without a 32bit runtime environment being installed.
>>>
>>> Micro$oft clearly thinks that kludge is superior to biting the
>>> bullet and properly migrating to a clean 64bit environment.
>>>
>>> LOL - this is little more than a rerun of the 16bit/32bit Windows
>>> bullshit that micro$oft claimed was a 32bit operating system!
>>>
>> This is exactly the same on Linux.
>
> Really?
>
Really. You cannot run 32 bit Linux apps on 64 bit Linux without the 32
bit libraries being installed, and they get installed by default when
the OS is installed.

Check for /lib and /lib64 directories. Or /lib32 and /lib depending on
your distro.

Cheers,

Cliff


--

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

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:15:47 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

>> Sounds like you've been ripped off if you don't have 64bit applications
>> available to you!
>>
> Sigh! 32 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, memory available for apps, approx
> 2.7GB. 64 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, almost 8GB available for apps.
>
> Regardless of whether or not they are 32 bit apps or 64 bit. (OK, some
> architecture effects reduce that a bit).

But you don't have 64bit applications!


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

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:20:28 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

>> Really?
>>
> Really. You cannot run 32 bit Linux apps on 64 bit Linux without the 32
> bit libraries being installed, and they get installed by default when
> the OS is installed.

But since when should anybody simply accept the default?

I didn't want those installed and so I deselected the 32bit libraries.

As I said, I have a 64bit clean system.


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

Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sweetpea wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:15:47 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> Sounds like you've been ripped off if you don't have 64bit
>>> applications available to you!
>>>
>> Sigh! 32 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, memory available for apps, approx
>> 2.7GB. 64 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, almost 8GB available for apps.
>>
>> Regardless of whether or not they are 32 bit apps or 64 bit. (OK,
>> some architecture effects reduce that a bit).
>
> But you don't have 64bit applications!

Look! A parrot!

<plonk>
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

On 19/01/2010 8:15 p.m., Enkidu wrote:
> Sigh! 32 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, memory available for apps, approx
> 2.7GB. 64 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, almost 8GB available for apps.
>

Now that depends on the OS. Its only XP/Vista/7 that artificially limits
32 bit to 4GB max.

On 20/01/2010 8:00 pm, eyes wrote:
> On 19/01/2010 8:15 p.m., Enkidu wrote:
>> Sigh! 32 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, memory available for apps, approx
>> 2.7GB. 64 bit OS with 8GB of RAM, almost 8GB available for apps.
>>
>
> Now that depends on the OS. Its only XP/Vista/7 that artificially limits
> 32 bit to 4GB max.

A 32 bit processor can only directly access 4GB of RAM. I'd hardly call
that artificial.

Allistar wrote:
> Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Sweetpea wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:54:29 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sweetpea wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:12:24 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 19, 12:20 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
>>>>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>>>>>> So much for Microsoft trumpeting the joys of 64-bit
>>>>>>> operating systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> <http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/why-microsoft-isnt-work...>
>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> who cares? (apart from you?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 64 bit Windows operating systems run 32 bit applications
>>>>>> like IE just fine
>>>>> Users can only run 32bit programs on 64 bit operating systems
>>>>> if those 64bit operating systems provide 32bit runtime
>>>>> libraries in addition tot he 64bit libraries - effectively
>>>>> needing 2 versions of the same OS installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in actual fact, NO a 32bit program CANNOT run on a 64bit
>>>>> OS without a 32bit runtime environment being installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Micro$oft clearly thinks that kludge is superior to biting
>>>>> the bullet and properly migrating to a clean 64bit
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL - this is little more than a rerun of the 16bit/32bit
>>>>> Windows bullshit that micro$oft claimed was a 32bit operating
>>>>> system!
>>>>>
>>>> This is exactly the same on Linux.
>>> Really?
>>>
>> Really. You cannot run 32 bit Linux apps on 64 bit Linux without
>> the 32 bit libraries being installed, and they get installed by
>> default when the OS is installed.
>
> Only if you want to to be.
>
So far as I recall, I have never been asked in any 64 bit install
whether or not the 32 bit libraries should be installed. They just were.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

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