Poor 64-Bit Dimdows...

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 31, 2009.

  1. I knew that Adobe only offers a Linux version of 64-bit Flash. But I was
    surprised to learn that Microsoft itself does not offer a 64-bit version of
    Silverlight!

    <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1605>
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 31, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > I knew that Adobe only offers a Linux version of 64-bit Flash. But I was
    > surprised to learn that Microsoft itself does not offer a 64-bit version of
    > Silverlight!
    >
    > <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1605>


    So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
    yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?
     
    Richard, Dec 31, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In message <hhhfhp$886$>, Richard wrote:

    > So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
    > yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?


    For a start, time_t only seems to be 64 bits on 64-bit systems. So if you
    want to cope in a standard way with dates outside about 1901 .. 2038, you
    will need to go 64 bits.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 31, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:16:03 +1300, Richard wrote:

    > So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
    > yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?


    Perhaps the demonstrable need is so that you can install an all 64bit environment and not have to
    install the 32bit libraries needed to run 32bit programs.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Jan 1, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:16:03 +1300, Richard wrote:
    >
    >> So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
    >> yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?

    >
    > Perhaps the demonstrable need is so that you can install an all 64bit environment and not have to
    > install the 32bit libraries needed to run 32bit programs.


    But the operating system comes with full support for 32 bit apps, so
    again, what is the problem?

    Perhaps in several versions time if they drop 32 bit like they dropped
    16 bit going into vista, then it will be a problem, but for now till
    browsers need 64 I have no issues with the lack of 64 bit plugins.
     
    Richard, Jan 1, 2010
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Carnations" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:16:03 +1300, Richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
    >>> yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?

    >>
    >> Perhaps the demonstrable need is so that you can install an all 64bit
    >> environment and not have to
    >> install the 32bit libraries needed to run 32bit programs.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > 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?
    >

    It also gives access to memory greater than 4GB. That can speed some
    things up significantly.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
     
    Enkidu, Jan 1, 2010
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:28:20 +1300, Richard wrote:

    >> Perhaps the demonstrable need is so that you can install an all 64bit
    >> environment and not have to install the 32bit libraries needed to run
    >> 32bit programs.

    >
    > But the operating system comes with full support for 32 bit apps, so
    > again, what is the problem?


    But NOT if you chose not to install the 32bit compatible libraries.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Jan 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    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.

    I'll leave it up to you to decide if that is a performance advantage or a _capacity_ advantage.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Jan 1, 2010
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    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.

    Altho' why anyone would need 12gb of RAM on a desktop computer being used to access the www
    with a Microsoft browser I really don't know - unless the actual real performance of that system is so
    appallingly poor that it really needs all that RAM just to work normally.!

    Oh, and BTW...

    [plonk - again!]


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Jan 1, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Carnations wrote:
    > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:28:20 +1300, Richard wrote:
    >
    >>> Perhaps the demonstrable need is so that you can install an all 64bit
    >>> environment and not have to install the 32bit libraries needed to run
    >>> 32bit programs.

    >> But the operating system comes with full support for 32 bit apps, so
    >> again, what is the problem?

    >
    > 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.
     
    Richard, Jan 1, 2010
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
     
    Enkidu, Jan 1, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
     
    Enkidu, Jan 1, 2010
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    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"
     
    Carnations, Jan 1, 2010
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    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, Jan 1, 2010
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    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?
     
    Richard, Jan 1, 2010
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    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
     
    Richard, Jan 1, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    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"
     
    Carnations, Jan 1, 2010
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    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"
     
    Carnations, Jan 1, 2010
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    John Little Guest

    On Jan 1, 8:58 pm, Carnations <> 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
     
    John Little, Jan 1, 2010
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    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.
     
    Enkidu, Jan 1, 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. =?Utf-8?B?dW51c3VhbHBzeWNobw==?=

    Poor reception, poor connection, and dropped signal

    =?Utf-8?B?dW51c3VhbHBzeWNobw==?=, Jun 7, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,896
    Doug Sherman [MVP]
    Jun 7, 2006
  2. Paul Petitt
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    360
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBQ?=
    Apr 19, 2007
  3. Rich

    Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...

    Rich, May 13, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,927
    Bob Larter
    Jun 11, 2009
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    128-Bit Dimdows Nonsense

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 3, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    618
    Sailor Sam
    Dec 4, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Nobody Uses 64-Bit Dimdows Browsers

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 18, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,479
    Sweetpea
    Jan 25, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page