Nobody Uses 64-Bit Dimdows Browsers

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 18, 2010.

  1. So much for Microsoft trumpeting the joys of 64-bit operating systems.

    <http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/why-microsoft-isnt-working-on-silverlight-64-bit.ars>
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 18, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    Nathan Mercer, Jan 19, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <5ea0bc04-ee07-4ea4-
    >, Nathan Mercer wrote:

    > 64 bit Windows operating systems run 32 bit applications like IE just
    > fine


    What is the point of 64-bit Windows, then?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 19, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-01-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <5ea0bc04-ee07-4ea4-
    > >, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >
    >> 64 bit Windows operating systems run 32 bit applications like IE just
    >> fine

    >
    > What is the point of 64-bit Windows, then?


    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
    Gordon, Jan 19, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:20:22 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > So much for Microsoft trumpeting the joys of 64-bit operating systems.
    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/why-microsoft-isnt-working-on-silverlight-64-bit.ars>


    It's interesting that while Micro$oft has a 64bit version of M$ Internet Exploder available, it won't support
    its own 64bit browser by providing a 64bit version of its own browser plugin. The insanely stupid
    reason they gave for not supporting it is effectively "we won't support our 64bit version of MS Internet
    Exploder because nobody else supports it."

    Hello!!! Is there anybody home?


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Jan 19, 2010
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    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!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Jan 19, 2010
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:11:06 +0000, Gordon wrote:

    > On 2010-01-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>
    > wrote:
    >> In message <5ea0bc04-ee07-4ea4-
    >> >, Nathan Mercer wrote:
    >>
    >>> 64 bit Windows operating systems run 32 bit applications like IE just
    >>> fine

    >>
    >> What is the point of 64-bit Windows, then?

    >
    > 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


    There is little point of running a 64bit OS if no 64bit programs are available for it. You might just as well
    only run the 32bit version and be done with it.

    The average user only uses a desktop computer for email and the WWW in any case.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Jan 19, 2010
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Sweetpea 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

    >
    > There is little point of running a 64bit OS if no 64bit programs are available for it. You might just as well
    > only run the 32bit version and be done with it.


    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.

    > The average user only uses a desktop computer for email and the WWW in any case.


    Dont know what average users you have been dealing with - video editing
    (even just windows movie maker needs a lot of resources) photo editing,
    photo printing, document creation.

    Perhaps if you only hang out in retirement homes your idea of average
    user is correct...
    Richard, Jan 19, 2010
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Jan 19, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    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!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Sweetpea, Jan 19, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
    Sweetpea, Jan 19, 2010
    #11
  12. 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?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 19, 2010
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
    Enkidu, Jan 19, 2010
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
    Enkidu, Jan 19, 2010
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
    Sweetpea, Jan 19, 2010
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Sweetpea Guest

    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"
    Sweetpea, Jan 19, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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'.
    ~misfit~, Jan 19, 2010
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    eyes Guest

    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.
    eyes, Jan 20, 2010
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    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.
    Nik Coughlin, Jan 20, 2010
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
    Enkidu, Jan 21, 2010
    #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. jimmie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    689
    The-Wisest-One
    Feb 26, 2006
  2. Spin
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    574
  3. Spin
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    337
    Colin Barnhorst
    Mar 7, 2008
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    128-Bit Dimdows Nonsense

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 3, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    595
    Sailor Sam
    Dec 4, 2009
  5. Chris Wilkinson

    Re: Nobody uses 64-bit browsers

    Chris Wilkinson, Jan 19, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    474
    Enkidu
    Jan 19, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page