7 flavours of Vista, but which ones are 64 bit?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by -=rjh=-, Sep 17, 2005.

  1. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    I haven't seem any reference to 64 bitness in any of the media
    "coverage" of this.

    Anyone know? Not that I'm racing out to buy it, I was just wondering...
     
    -=rjh=-, Sep 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "-=rjh=-" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I haven't seem any reference to 64 bitness in any of the media "coverage"
    >of this.
    >
    > Anyone know? Not that I'm racing out to buy it, I was just wondering...


    doesn't matter at this stage really.
     
    news.xtra.co.nz, Sep 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. No official announcements yet. but its likely they all will be

    Cheers
    Nathan
     
    Nathan Mercer, Sep 17, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote:

    >In article <>, -=rjh=- <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>I haven't seem any reference to 64 bitness in any of the media
    >>"coverage" of this.
    >>
    >>Anyone know? Not that I'm racing out to buy it, I was just wondering...

    >
    >No official announcements yet. but its likely they all will be


    I think that should be qualified as "they all will be to some extent".
    The reality of 64-bit Dimdows is that it is still mostly running 32-bit
    code, and migrating to full 64-bit is going to be a very difficult,
    costly and drawn-out chicken-and-egg problem.

    Unlike, for instance, 64-bit Open Source operating systems, which are
    already running almost entirely 64-bit code.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 17, 2005
    #4
  5. -=rjh=-

    Rob J Guest

    On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:50:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>, -=rjh=- <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>I haven't seem any reference to 64 bitness in any of the media
    >>>"coverage" of this.
    >>>
    >>>Anyone know? Not that I'm racing out to buy it, I was just wondering...

    >>
    >>No official announcements yet. but its likely they all will be

    >
    >I think that should be qualified as "they all will be to some extent".
    >The reality of 64-bit Dimdows is that it is still mostly running 32-bit
    >code, and migrating to full 64-bit is going to be a very difficult,
    >costly and drawn-out chicken-and-egg problem.
    >
    >Unlike, for instance, 64-bit Open Source operating systems, which are
    >already running almost entirely 64-bit code.


    So, your 64 bit OSS OS doesn't have to run any old 32 bit apps?
     
    Rob J, Sep 19, 2005
    #5
  6. -=rjh=-

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:20:47 +1200, Rob J wrote:

    >>Unlike, for instance, 64-bit Open Source operating systems, which are
    >>already running almost entirely 64-bit code.

    >
    > So, your 64 bit OSS OS doesn't have to run any old 32 bit apps?


    You make a statement about somebody else's software, and then
    pretend its a question by appending a question mark.

    Kindly phrase it as a question or stop telling people about their
    own stuff.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack
    perspective.
     
    Bling-Bling, Sep 19, 2005
    #6
  7. In article <>,
    Rob J <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:50:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    ><_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>, -=rjh=- <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>I haven't seem any reference to 64 bitness in any of the media
    >>>>"coverage" of this.
    >>>>
    >>>>Anyone know? Not that I'm racing out to buy it, I was just wondering...
    >>>
    >>>No official announcements yet. but its likely they all will be

    >>
    >>I think that should be qualified as "they all will be to some extent".
    >>The reality of 64-bit Dimdows is that it is still mostly running 32-bit
    >>code, and migrating to full 64-bit is going to be a very difficult,
    >>costly and drawn-out chicken-and-egg problem.
    >>
    >>Unlike, for instance, 64-bit Open Source operating systems, which are
    >>already running almost entirely 64-bit code.

    >
    >So, your 64 bit OSS OS doesn't have to run any old 32 bit apps?


    Correct. The apps can be recompiled from source to become pure 64-bit.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 19, 2005
    #7
  8. -=rjh=-

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:45:43 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >>So, your 64 bit OSS OS doesn't have to run any old 32 bit apps?

    >
    > Correct. The apps can be recompiled from source to become pure 64-bit.


    Also, it is possible for a Linux system to ship with both 64bit AND 32bit
    libraries, so that either can be used for when in the position of not
    being able to get a 64bit version - such as when using a proprietary
    software product.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack
    perspective.
     
    Bling-Bling, Sep 19, 2005
    #8
  9. -=rjh=-

    Jennings Guest

    On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:45:29 +1200, Bling-Bling wrote:

    > On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:20:47 +1200, Rob J wrote:
    >
    >>>Unlike, for instance, 64-bit Open Source operating systems, which are
    >>>already running almost entirely 64-bit code.

    >>
    >> So, your 64 bit OSS OS doesn't have to run any old 32 bit apps?


    Not having a 64 bit of a office product i would presume would be
    a major concern for company`s moving to 64 bit ?

    You only have to look in the gentoo forums to find the huge number of
    people really un-happy with the drama the 64 bit path will give you.
    A lot of folks just dont see the shortfalls justifiable in moving to 64
    bit.

    > You make a statement about somebody else's software, and then pretend
    > its a question by appending a question mark.
    >
    > Kindly phrase it as a question or stop telling people about their own
    > stuff.
    >
    >
    > Bling Bling



    "Kindly phrase it as a question or stop telling people about their own
    stuff." > that should be the bling quote for the Year !



    PS I think your digging your own grave on this 64 bit issue again.


    J.
     
    Jennings, Sep 19, 2005
    #9
  10. T'was the Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:45:29 +1200 when I remembered
    Bling-Bling <> saying something like this:

    >Kindly phrase it as a question or stop telling people about their
    >own stuff.


    Breaking the rules of usenet is he?
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
     
    Waylon Kenning, Sep 19, 2005
    #10
  11. -=rjh=-

    Chris Hope Guest

    Jennings wrote:

    [snip]

    > "Kindly phrase it as a question or stop telling people about their own
    > stuff." > that should be the bling quote for the Year !


    Yep, especially as he himself is constantly telling people "about their
    own stuff". Of course when he's proved wrong about something he either
    just shuts up and then tries to argue the point again in some other
    thread a month down the track, or ignores the part of the post that
    proves him wrong and goes off on some other tangent to try to prove
    some other stupid point. The funniest ones are when people argue him in
    circles and his arguments in the same thread contradict one another.

    [snip]

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz
     
    Chris Hope, Sep 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Chris Hope wrote:
    >>"Kindly phrase it as a question or stop telling people about their own
    >> stuff." > that should be the bling quote for the Year !


    > Yep, especially as he himself is constantly telling people "about their
    > own stuff". Of course when he's proved wrong about something he either
    > just shuts up and then tries to argue the point again in some other
    > thread a month down the track, or ignores the part of the post that
    > proves him wrong and goes off on some other tangent to try to prove
    > some other stupid point. The funniest ones are when people argue him in
    > circles and his arguments in the same thread contradict one another.


    I thought you weren't meant to let people know that they were idiots,
    isn't it best to let them continue to argue themselves into oblivion?

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 20, 2005
    #12
  13. -=rjh=-

    Steve H Guest

    On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:45:43 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Rob J <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:50:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >><_zealand> wrote:


    >>So, your 64 bit OSS OS doesn't have to run any old 32 bit apps?

    >
    > Correct. The apps can be recompiled from source to become pure 64-bit.


    sure sure

    because everybody knows that porting form 32 -> 64 bit is as simple as
    flicking a compiler flag.

    --------
    Steven H
     
    Steve H, Sep 20, 2005
    #13
  14. -=rjh=-

    Chris Hope Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Chris Hope wrote:
    >>>"Kindly phrase it as a question or stop telling people about their
    >>>own
    >>> stuff." > that should be the bling quote for the Year !

    >
    >> Yep, especially as he himself is constantly telling people "about
    >> their own stuff". Of course when he's proved wrong about something he
    >> either just shuts up and then tries to argue the point again in some
    >> other thread a month down the track, or ignores the part of the post
    >> that proves him wrong and goes off on some other tangent to try to
    >> prove some other stupid point. The funniest ones are when people
    >> argue him in circles and his arguments in the same thread contradict
    >> one another.

    >
    > I thought you weren't meant to let people know that they were idiots,
    > isn't it best to let them continue to argue themselves into oblivion?


    Hmm true. I don't think anything I post will stop him from doing that
    though ;)

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz
     
    Chris Hope, Sep 20, 2005
    #14
  15. In article <1lkydn2y516xm$>,
    Steve H <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:45:43 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> Rob J <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:50:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>><_zealand> wrote:

    >
    >>>So, your 64 bit OSS OS doesn't have to run any old 32 bit apps?

    >>
    >> Correct. The apps can be recompiled from source to become pure 64-bit.

    >
    >sure sure
    >
    >because everybody knows that porting form 32 -> 64 bit is as simple as
    >flicking a compiler flag.


    Typically no need to explicitly set any compiler flags at all:

    ./configure
    -- figures out all the necessary system dependencies,
    -- 32-bit versus 64-bit etc
    make
    -- does the actual build from sources
    make install
    -- and now you're cooking with gas.

    Remember that open-source software has been routinely dealing with
    64-bit processors for over a decade now.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 20, 2005
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    Jennings <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:45:29 +1200, Bling-Bling wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:20:47 +1200, Rob J wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Unlike, for instance, 64-bit Open Source operating systems, which are
    >>>>already running almost entirely 64-bit code.
    >>>
    >>> So, your 64 bit OSS OS doesn't have to run any old 32 bit apps?

    >
    >Not having a 64 bit of a office product i would presume would be
    >a major concern for company`s moving to 64 bit ?
    >
    >You only have to look in the gentoo forums to find the huge number of
    >people really un-happy with the drama the 64 bit path will give you.
    > A lot of folks just dont see the shortfalls justifiable in moving to 64
    > bit.


    My 64-bit experience isn't from reading other people's forum posts, it's
    from working with 64-bit hardware myself and setting it up for clients
    to use in mission-critical applications. That means if there are any
    problems, it's my arse on the line.

    It just so happens all the 64-bit hardware I've touched is running SuSE,
    not Gentoo, but all of it just works. It took very little effort to
    recompile my own software so it would work on both 32-bit and 64-bit
    systems. But then, that's just the flexibility of the Linux environment
    for you.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 20, 2005
    #16
  17. -=rjh=-

    Jennings Guest

    On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:22:42 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:


    >
    > My 64-bit experience isn't from reading other people's forum posts, it's
    > from working with 64-bit hardware myself and setting it up for clients
    > to use in mission-critical applications. That means if there are any
    > problems, it's my arse on the line.
    >



    Ive always found the linux forums the best place to start reading.

    You get to hear from the frustrated users, hear about driver problems,
    apps that crash now, apps that used to work,

    The drama people still face getting ALSA to work, compile using inbuilt
    sound support , then when that fails switch to alsa-driver ,
    bugger around recompiling the kernel, try alsa-driver in stable , the
    unstable and before you know it you have blown 3 days to get your
    sound card working which in windows xp , where it would take you 90
    seconds to do in windowxp.


    Then you really need to sit on irc.freenode.com and watch some help
    channels then you work it out for your-self.



    > It just so happens all the 64-bit hardware I've touched is running SuSE,
    > not Gentoo, but all of it just works. It took very little effort to
    > recompile my own software so it would work on both 32-bit and 64-bit
    > systems. But then, that's just the flexibility of the Linux environment
    > for you.



    Your just like lennier, you seem to base your fanatical views on some
    tiny subset of linux , and turn that into some massive generalization of
    how great linux is.

    Your running some mission critical box running some 3 year old kernel,
    some old software thats been picked to pieces for years, running some
    tweaked kernel that just has the min hardware support it needs to run,
    running old / essential minimum number of library's.



    Back in the real world all the above meaning close to jack shit when
    it comes to Joe user buying / downloading the latest 64 bit distro with a
    bloated, huge kernel with all the hardware built in / module support up ya
    whaazooo to support all the hardware Joe user might plug in. With the
    usual kitchen sink approach on the amount of software that gets installed.

    With a slowwwwwwwww KDE GNOME GUI to boot.


    J.
     
    Jennings, Sep 20, 2005
    #17
  18. In article <>,
    Jennings <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:22:42 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> My 64-bit experience isn't from reading other people's forum posts, it's
    >> from working with 64-bit hardware myself and setting it up for clients
    >> to use in mission-critical applications. That means if there are any
    >> problems, it's my arse on the line.

    >
    >Ive always found the linux forums the best place to start reading.
    >
    >You get to hear from the frustrated users, hear about driver problems,
    >apps that crash now, apps that used to work,
    >
    >The drama people still face getting ALSA to work, compile using inbuilt
    >sound support , then when that fails switch to alsa-driver ,
    >bugger around recompiling the kernel, try alsa-driver in stable , the
    >unstable and before you know it you have blown 3 days to get your
    >sound card working which in windows xp , where it would take you 90
    >seconds to do in windowxp.
    >
    >Then you really need to sit on irc.freenode.com and watch some help
    >channels then you work it out for your-self.
    >
    >> It just so happens all the 64-bit hardware I've touched is running SuSE,
    >> not Gentoo, but all of it just works. It took very little effort to
    >> recompile my own software so it would work on both 32-bit and 64-bit
    >> systems. But then, that's just the flexibility of the Linux environment
    >> for you.

    >
    >[You're] just like lennier, you seem to base your fanatical views on some
    >tiny subset of linux , and turn that into some massive generalization of
    >how great linux is.


    I'm not a vicarious see-no-touch Linux spectator, picking up my
    conclusions from how many good or bad experiences I can read about in
    the forums. Like I said, I use Linux myself, and I support clients who
    use it, every day. These clients deploy it in mission-critical
    situations, revenue-earning situations--situations where it has to work,
    or else. These clients know they can rely on Linux to pull them through,
    because I say so, and they depend on me.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 21, 2005
    #18
  19. -=rjh=-

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:00:56 +1200, Jennings wrote:

    > PS I think your digging your own grave on this 64 bit issue again.


    "Your digging"??

    Who was talking about archeology?


    Bling Bling

    --
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack
    perspective.
     
    Bling-Bling, Sep 21, 2005
    #19
  20. -=rjh=-

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:04:20 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >>because everybody knows that porting form 32 -> 64 bit is as simple as
    >>flicking a compiler flag.

    >
    > Typically no need to explicitly set any compiler flags at all:
    >
    > ./configure
    > -- figures out all the necessary system dependencies, -- 32-bit
    > versus 64-bit etc
    > make
    > -- does the actual build from sources
    > make install
    > -- and now you're cooking with gas.
    >
    > Remember that open-source software has been routinely dealing with 64-bit
    > processors for over a decade now.


    Dude - that's because the software developers have already sorted out the
    differences and have produced code for the different processors.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack
    perspective.
     
    Bling-Bling, Sep 21, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PowerPost2000

    Hard drives--Are big ones more delicate than smaller ones?

    PowerPost2000, Mar 1, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    521
    Togobacteria Peptidovorans Xylosoxydans Rymovirus
    Mar 1, 2005
  2. Ken
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    450
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Sep 17, 2008
  3. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    801
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
  4. David B.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    533
    David B.
    Jan 20, 2009
  5. Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    468
    Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Jan 21, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page