x 64 major confussion

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?Zy4wNw==?=, Jul 28, 2005.

  1. I’m so confused with this new Windows X64. I’m a graphic designer and my pc
    is running with a AMD 64 bit processor in Windows Xp SP2, but I’m not sure
    or completely convinced in installing X64 in my system.

    1) Will I have ANY problems running 32 bits software (Adobe, Macromedia,
    Chaoescope) in X64?

    2)Will I be able to open archives and exchange info from 32 bits in a 64 bit
    application? For example: in the hypothetical case that there was a version
    of Adobe Illustrator CS for x64, could I Copy+paste info. from an older 32
    bit version of Illustrator to the new one as well as the other way around?

    3) Will I be able to burn info from a 64 bit program and open it in another
    PC with another version of Windows (let’s say Windows 2000) but in the same
    program? In the hypothetical case again: to open an archive made in
    “Photoshop CS 64†and open it in Photoshop 7 running in Windows 2000.

    4) Archives made in a 32 bit program running in Windows X64 will open and be
    editable when passed to another computer running Windows XP SP2 or older
    versions of Windows?

    5) With Windows Vista “a la vista†:) will there be a version of it for 64
    bits users?

    THANX
    =?Utf-8?B?Zy4wNw==?=, Jul 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "g.07" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm so confused with this new Windows X64. I'm a graphic designer and my
    > pc
    > is running with a AMD 64 bit processor in Windows Xp SP2, but I'm not sure
    > or completely convinced in installing X64 in my system.
    >
    > 1) Will I have ANY problems running 32 bits software (Adobe, Macromedia,
    > Chaoescope) in X64?


    Possibly. You would need to test your applications prior to a decision to
    implement.

    >
    > 2)Will I be able to open archives and exchange info from 32 bits in a 64
    > bit
    > application? For example: in the hypothetical case that there was a
    > version
    > of Adobe Illustrator CS for x64, could I Copy+paste info. from an older 32
    > bit version of Illustrator to the new one as well as the other way around?
    >


    The file formats may or may not change between a vendors 32-bit and 64-bit
    application, but that would be the application vendors call. Again testing
    of the interoperability between a 64 and 32 version of a vendors
    applications would be required.

    > 3) Will I be able to burn info from a 64 bit program and open it in
    > another
    > PC with another version of Windows (let's say Windows 2000) but in the
    > same
    > program? In the hypothetical case again: to open an archive made in
    > "Photoshop CS 64" and open it in Photoshop 7 running in Windows 2000.
    >


    As per the answer above. This will be up to the application vendor. You
    may be able to open the 32bit data but your 32-bit application may not
    necessarily be able to open a 64-bit file.

    > 4) Archives made in a 32 bit program running in Windows X64 will open and
    > be
    > editable when passed to another computer running Windows XP SP2 or older
    > versions of Windows?
    >


    As above

    >5) With Windows Vista "a la vista" :) will there be a version of it for 64

    bits users?

    Yes we are doing both 32-bit and 64-bit (x64) versions of Windows Vista.

    I'm sorry that so few of the answers above are conclusive but it really is
    up to the application vendor what they do with regard to interoperability
    between their applications on different platforms.
    --

    Regards,

    Mike
    --
    Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    rights

    Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
    newsgroups

    "g.07" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm so confused with this new Windows X64. I'm a graphic designer and my
    > pc
    > is running with a AMD 64 bit processor in Windows Xp SP2, but I'm not sure
    > or completely convinced in installing X64 in my system.
    >
    > 1) Will I have ANY problems running 32 bits software (Adobe, Macromedia,
    > Chaoescope) in X64?
    >
    > 2)Will I be able to open archives and exchange info from 32 bits in a 64
    > bit
    > application? For example: in the hypothetical case that there was a
    > version
    > of Adobe Illustrator CS for x64, could I Copy+paste info. from an older 32
    > bit version of Illustrator to the new one as well as the other way around?
    >
    > 3) Will I be able to burn info from a 64 bit program and open it in
    > another
    > PC with another version of Windows (let's say Windows 2000) but in the
    > same
    > program? In the hypothetical case again: to open an archive made in
    > "Photoshop CS 64" and open it in Photoshop 7 running in Windows 2000.
    >
    > 4) Archives made in a 32 bit program running in Windows X64 will open and
    > be
    > editable when passed to another computer running Windows XP SP2 or older
    > versions of Windows?
    >
    > 5) With Windows Vista "a la vista" :) will there be a version of it for 64
    > bits users?
    >
    > THANX
    >
    >
    Mike Brannigan [MSFT], Jul 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. It might be neat to have a native 64bit version of Illustrator CS, but you
    do not need to have it. Your present copy would work fine. It would run in
    a Win32 emulation mode called WOW64 (Windows on Windows 64). WOW64 is very
    efficient and execution is about the same as on 32bit Windows.

    The problems start with device drivers. 32 bit device drivers will NOT
    work. For example, Adobe Acrobat 7 works fine, but Distiller does not
    because it requires a 64bit device driver that doesn't exist yet. Printers,
    scanners, and plotters are what may bite you. You need to determine if your
    equipment has 64bit device drivers from the mfg. (MS does not write any).

    In short, it is not the case that you need native 64bit programs to replace
    your present 32bit programs. Just install your 32bit programs. However,
    you do need native 64bit drivers when device drivers are required. That has
    been the showstopper with a few programs.

    There are no issues that prevent normal drag and drop and file compatibility
    is not an issue between Photoshop and, well...Photoshop. You are assuming
    some differences in how files are saved in 32 and 64bit Windows that really
    don't exist. The file system doesn't care. I moved an external hard drive
    with 20GB of data on it from one of my 32bit machines and plugged it into a
    usb port on my 64bit Windows machine and simply started dragging and
    dropping folders full of all kinds of files onto one of my internal hard
    drives.

    Both the 32bit and 64bit editions of Vista beta 1 went to beta testers
    today.

    Based on the axiety level I feel in your questions you probably are not
    ready for 64bits unless your memory requirements are pretty horrendous and
    you just have to go 64.

    Having said that, 64bits is here for real and momentum will build a lot
    before the year is out.

    "g.07" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm so confused with this new Windows X64. I'm a graphic designer and my
    > pc
    > is running with a AMD 64 bit processor in Windows Xp SP2, but I'm not sure
    > or completely convinced in installing X64 in my system.
    >
    > 1) Will I have ANY problems running 32 bits software (Adobe, Macromedia,
    > Chaoescope) in X64?
    >
    > 2)Will I be able to open archives and exchange info from 32 bits in a 64
    > bit
    > application? For example: in the hypothetical case that there was a
    > version
    > of Adobe Illustrator CS for x64, could I Copy+paste info. from an older 32
    > bit version of Illustrator to the new one as well as the other way around?
    >
    > 3) Will I be able to burn info from a 64 bit program and open it in
    > another
    > PC with another version of Windows (let's say Windows 2000) but in the
    > same
    > program? In the hypothetical case again: to open an archive made in
    > "Photoshop CS 64" and open it in Photoshop 7 running in Windows 2000.
    >
    > 4) Archives made in a 32 bit program running in Windows X64 will open and
    > be
    > editable when passed to another computer running Windows XP SP2 or older
    > versions of Windows?
    >
    > 5) With Windows Vista "a la vista" :) will there be a version of it for 64
    > bits users?
    >
    > THANX
    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 28, 2005
    #3
  4. But isn't Illustrator a multithreaded application? So it should take
    advantage of the latest in processing power.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It might be neat to have a native 64bit version of Illustrator CS, but you
    > do not need to have it. Your present copy would work fine. It would run
    > in a Win32 emulation mode called WOW64 (Windows on Windows 64). WOW64 is
    > very efficient and execution is about the same as on 32bit Windows.
    >
    > The problems start with device drivers. 32 bit device drivers will NOT
    > work. For example, Adobe Acrobat 7 works fine, but Distiller does not
    > because it requires a 64bit device driver that doesn't exist yet.
    > Printers, scanners, and plotters are what may bite you. You need to
    > determine if your equipment has 64bit device drivers from the mfg. (MS
    > does not write any).
    >
    > In short, it is not the case that you need native 64bit programs to
    > replace your present 32bit programs. Just install your 32bit programs.
    > However, you do need native 64bit drivers when device drivers are
    > required. That has been the showstopper with a few programs.
    >
    > There are no issues that prevent normal drag and drop and file
    > compatibility is not an issue between Photoshop and, well...Photoshop.
    > You are assuming some differences in how files are saved in 32 and 64bit
    > Windows that really don't exist. The file system doesn't care. I moved
    > an external hard drive with 20GB of data on it from one of my 32bit
    > machines and plugged it into a usb port on my 64bit Windows machine and
    > simply started dragging and dropping folders full of all kinds of files
    > onto one of my internal hard drives.
    >
    > Both the 32bit and 64bit editions of Vista beta 1 went to beta testers
    > today.
    >
    > Based on the axiety level I feel in your questions you probably are not
    > ready for 64bits unless your memory requirements are pretty horrendous and
    > you just have to go 64.
    >
    > Having said that, 64bits is here for real and momentum will build a lot
    > before the year is out.
    >
    > "g.07" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I'm so confused with this new Windows X64. I'm a graphic designer and my
    >> pc
    >> is running with a AMD 64 bit processor in Windows Xp SP2, but I'm not
    >> sure
    >> or completely convinced in installing X64 in my system.
    >>
    >> 1) Will I have ANY problems running 32 bits software (Adobe, Macromedia,
    >> Chaoescope) in X64?
    >>
    >> 2)Will I be able to open archives and exchange info from 32 bits in a 64
    >> bit
    >> application? For example: in the hypothetical case that there was a
    >> version
    >> of Adobe Illustrator CS for x64, could I Copy+paste info. from an older
    >> 32
    >> bit version of Illustrator to the new one as well as the other way
    >> around?
    >>
    >> 3) Will I be able to burn info from a 64 bit program and open it in
    >> another
    >> PC with another version of Windows (let's say Windows 2000) but in the
    >> same
    >> program? In the hypothetical case again: to open an archive made in
    >> "Photoshop CS 64" and open it in Photoshop 7 running in Windows 2000.
    >>
    >> 4) Archives made in a 32 bit program running in Windows X64 will open and
    >> be
    >> editable when passed to another computer running Windows XP SP2 or older
    >> versions of Windows?
    >>
    >> 5) With Windows Vista "a la vista" :) will there be a version of it for
    >> 64
    >> bits users?
    >>
    >> THANX
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jul 28, 2005
    #4
  5. Windows XP 32-bit is multi-threaded so that in itself surely doesn't matter.
    A multi-threaded app on multi-threaded hardware (Intel HT or AMD dual-core)
    will multi thread just as well in 32-bit as they will in 64-bit. So the
    question should really be, is Illustrator 64-bit or be able to take advantage
    of more than 4GB RAM?

    "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote:

    > But isn't Illustrator a multithreaded application? So it should take
    > advantage of the latest in processing power.
    > --
    > Andre
    =?Utf-8?B?R3VpbHR5Q29s?=, Jul 28, 2005
    #5
  6. =?Utf-8?B?Zy4wNw==?=

    Default User Guest

    "GuiltyCol" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Windows XP 32-bit is multi-threaded so that in itself surely doesn't
    > matter.
    > A multi-threaded app on multi-threaded hardware (Intel HT or AMD
    > dual-core)
    > will multi thread just as well in 32-bit as they will in 64-bit. So the
    > question should really be, is Illustrator 64-bit or be able to take
    > advantage
    > of more than 4GB RAM?



    <snip>

    .... and then, given the hardware restrictions of most systems around
    currently - that you can't easily / feasibly have more than 4GB ram on many
    motherboards this is a little moot.
    (Most motherboards have only 4 memory slots. Memory sticks over 1GB are not
    common yet, expensive, and are more often than not, not supported on the
    current crop of desktop motherboards).

    About the only systems that routinely offer more than 4GB of RAM are Intel
    Xeon and AMD Opteron systems. They do so by offering more memory slots and
    by supporting memory sticks over 1GB. Consequently such systems are really
    expensive (IMHO)...

    You do get 1 major benefit with good motherboards and 64bit ready systems -
    currently, if you have 4GB RAM on a 32bit system you will invariably find a
    big chunk of RAM is missing in whatever OS you run because the Hardware
    reserves large chunks of the address space for PCI devices. This can be as
    much as 3/4 GB of RAM that just disappears. So if you have a 64 bit ready
    system and the correct BIOS you can recover this RAM and allocate more to
    Applications (/3GB switch). Look for a BIOS switch that will remap hardware
    reservations above the 4GB mark.

    It *is* up to the application developer (Macromedia) to ensure that files
    are compatible across hardware platforms and OS versions. Technically, they
    should produce a new file extension if the file format changes to indicate a
    64bit version of a file if they have to - but the only time they may need to
    do this is if they have made a file design blue and artificially limited its
    size internally by using "small" (32 bit) pointers or something similarly
    daft. This is not too likely for many reasons not the least of which is you
    shouldn't store a 'pointer' in a file. This is part of the expense in
    converting applications from 32 to 64 bit native - making sure the file
    formats are identical.

    To the OP: ask Macromedia. Check for Trial or Beta product availability. Get
    on some of the Macromedia news groups and ask there. It is not something to
    assume as it has the potential to be an expensive assumption. Get the XP64
    bit trial and work through driver and other issues before you commit...

    HTH
    - Tim
    Default User, Jul 29, 2005
    #6
  7. Not all 64bit systems support multithreading. My AMD Athlon 64 x2 does not.
    However, if CS is multithreading the result on my system would be
    multitasking at great advantage because of the dual cores.

    "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > But isn't Illustrator a multithreaded application? So it should take
    > advantage of the latest in processing power.
    > --
    > Andre
    > Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    > Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    > http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    > FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> It might be neat to have a native 64bit version of Illustrator CS, but
    >> you do not need to have it. Your present copy would work fine. It would
    >> run in a Win32 emulation mode called WOW64 (Windows on Windows 64).
    >> WOW64 is very efficient and execution is about the same as on 32bit
    >> Windows.
    >>
    >> The problems start with device drivers. 32 bit device drivers will NOT
    >> work. For example, Adobe Acrobat 7 works fine, but Distiller does not
    >> because it requires a 64bit device driver that doesn't exist yet.
    >> Printers, scanners, and plotters are what may bite you. You need to
    >> determine if your equipment has 64bit device drivers from the mfg. (MS
    >> does not write any).
    >>
    >> In short, it is not the case that you need native 64bit programs to
    >> replace your present 32bit programs. Just install your 32bit programs.
    >> However, you do need native 64bit drivers when device drivers are
    >> required. That has been the showstopper with a few programs.
    >>
    >> There are no issues that prevent normal drag and drop and file
    >> compatibility is not an issue between Photoshop and, well...Photoshop.
    >> You are assuming some differences in how files are saved in 32 and 64bit
    >> Windows that really don't exist. The file system doesn't care. I moved
    >> an external hard drive with 20GB of data on it from one of my 32bit
    >> machines and plugged it into a usb port on my 64bit Windows machine and
    >> simply started dragging and dropping folders full of all kinds of files
    >> onto one of my internal hard drives.
    >>
    >> Both the 32bit and 64bit editions of Vista beta 1 went to beta testers
    >> today.
    >>
    >> Based on the axiety level I feel in your questions you probably are not
    >> ready for 64bits unless your memory requirements are pretty horrendous
    >> and you just have to go 64.
    >>
    >> Having said that, 64bits is here for real and momentum will build a lot
    >> before the year is out.
    >>
    >> "g.07" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> I'm so confused with this new Windows X64. I'm a graphic designer and my
    >>> pc
    >>> is running with a AMD 64 bit processor in Windows Xp SP2, but I'm not
    >>> sure
    >>> or completely convinced in installing X64 in my system.
    >>>
    >>> 1) Will I have ANY problems running 32 bits software (Adobe, Macromedia,
    >>> Chaoescope) in X64?
    >>>
    >>> 2)Will I be able to open archives and exchange info from 32 bits in a 64
    >>> bit
    >>> application? For example: in the hypothetical case that there was a
    >>> version
    >>> of Adobe Illustrator CS for x64, could I Copy+paste info. from an older
    >>> 32
    >>> bit version of Illustrator to the new one as well as the other way
    >>> around?
    >>>
    >>> 3) Will I be able to burn info from a 64 bit program and open it in
    >>> another
    >>> PC with another version of Windows (let's say Windows 2000) but in the
    >>> same
    >>> program? In the hypothetical case again: to open an archive made in
    >>> "Photoshop CS 64" and open it in Photoshop 7 running in Windows 2000.
    >>>
    >>> 4) Archives made in a 32 bit program running in Windows X64 will open
    >>> and be
    >>> editable when passed to another computer running Windows XP SP2 or older
    >>> versions of Windows?
    >>>
    >>> 5) With Windows Vista "a la vista" :) will there be a version of it for
    >>> 64
    >>> bits users?
    >>>
    >>> THANX
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 29, 2005
    #7
  8. Which was point I was making to the OP; unless memory requirements are
    severe in his work, he should consider waiting. He is practically a basket
    case over changing to x64.

    "GuiltyCol" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Windows XP 32-bit is multi-threaded so that in itself surely doesn't
    > matter.
    > A multi-threaded app on multi-threaded hardware (Intel HT or AMD
    > dual-core)
    > will multi thread just as well in 32-bit as they will in 64-bit. So the
    > question should really be, is Illustrator 64-bit or be able to take
    > advantage
    > of more than 4GB RAM?
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote:
    >
    >> But isn't Illustrator a multithreaded application? So it should take
    >> advantage of the latest in processing power.
    >> --
    >> Andre

    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 29, 2005
    #8
  9. However, a program that cannot get more than 2GB of ram in Windows x86 can
    take advantage of the full 4GB in x64 if they were written right (less OS
    and app overhead, natch).

    "Default User" <> wrote in message
    news:O4wdzO$...
    > "GuiltyCol" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Windows XP 32-bit is multi-threaded so that in itself surely doesn't
    >> matter.
    >> A multi-threaded app on multi-threaded hardware (Intel HT or AMD
    >> dual-core)
    >> will multi thread just as well in 32-bit as they will in 64-bit. So the
    >> question should really be, is Illustrator 64-bit or be able to take
    >> advantage
    >> of more than 4GB RAM?

    >
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > ... and then, given the hardware restrictions of most systems around
    > currently - that you can't easily / feasibly have more than 4GB ram on
    > many motherboards this is a little moot.
    > (Most motherboards have only 4 memory slots. Memory sticks over 1GB are
    > not common yet, expensive, and are more often than not, not supported on
    > the current crop of desktop motherboards).
    >
    > About the only systems that routinely offer more than 4GB of RAM are Intel
    > Xeon and AMD Opteron systems. They do so by offering more memory slots and
    > by supporting memory sticks over 1GB. Consequently such systems are really
    > expensive (IMHO)...
    >
    > You do get 1 major benefit with good motherboards and 64bit ready
    > systems - currently, if you have 4GB RAM on a 32bit system you will
    > invariably find a big chunk of RAM is missing in whatever OS you run
    > because the Hardware reserves large chunks of the address space for PCI
    > devices. This can be as much as 3/4 GB of RAM that just disappears. So if
    > you have a 64 bit ready system and the correct BIOS you can recover this
    > RAM and allocate more to Applications (/3GB switch). Look for a BIOS
    > switch that will remap hardware reservations above the 4GB mark.
    >
    > It *is* up to the application developer (Macromedia) to ensure that files
    > are compatible across hardware platforms and OS versions. Technically,
    > they should produce a new file extension if the file format changes to
    > indicate a 64bit version of a file if they have to - but the only time
    > they may need to do this is if they have made a file design blue and
    > artificially limited its size internally by using "small" (32 bit)
    > pointers or something similarly daft. This is not too likely for many
    > reasons not the least of which is you shouldn't store a 'pointer' in a
    > file. This is part of the expense in converting applications from 32 to 64
    > bit native - making sure the file formats are identical.
    >
    > To the OP: ask Macromedia. Check for Trial or Beta product availability.
    > Get on some of the Macromedia news groups and ask there. It is not
    > something to assume as it has the potential to be an expensive assumption.
    > Get the XP64 bit trial and work through driver and other issues before you
    > commit...
    >
    > HTH
    > - Tim
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 29, 2005
    #9
  10. actually, even on single core, non hyperthreaded, CPUs can support
    multithreading. It just doesn't gain you much since the threads are handled
    by processor time slicing, not by parallel thread execution. :(

    --
    Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
    ======================
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > Not all 64bit systems support multithreading. My AMD Athlon 64 x2
    > does not. However, if CS is multithreading the result on my system
    > would be multitasking at great advantage because of the dual cores.
    >
    > "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> But isn't Illustrator a multithreaded application? So it should take
    >> advantage of the latest in processing power.
    >> --
    >> Andre
    >> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    >> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    >> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    >> FAQ for MS AntiSpy
    >> http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm "Colin Barnhorst"
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> It might be neat to have a native 64bit version of Illustrator CS,
    >>> but you do not need to have it. Your present copy would work fine.
    >>> It would run in a Win32 emulation mode called WOW64 (Windows on
    >>> Windows 64). WOW64 is very efficient and execution is about the
    >>> same as on 32bit Windows.
    >>>
    >>> The problems start with device drivers. 32 bit device drivers will
    >>> NOT work. For example, Adobe Acrobat 7 works fine, but Distiller
    >>> does not because it requires a 64bit device driver that doesn't
    >>> exist yet. Printers, scanners, and plotters are what may bite you. You
    >>> need to determine if your equipment has 64bit device drivers
    >>> from the mfg. (MS does not write any).
    >>>
    >>> In short, it is not the case that you need native 64bit programs to
    >>> replace your present 32bit programs. Just install your 32bit
    >>> programs. However, you do need native 64bit drivers when device
    >>> drivers are required. That has been the showstopper with a few
    >>> programs. There are no issues that prevent normal drag and drop and file
    >>> compatibility is not an issue between Photoshop and,
    >>> well...Photoshop. You are assuming some differences in how files
    >>> are saved in 32 and 64bit Windows that really don't exist. The
    >>> file system doesn't care. I moved an external hard drive with 20GB
    >>> of data on it from one of my 32bit machines and plugged it into a
    >>> usb port on my 64bit Windows machine and simply started dragging
    >>> and dropping folders full of all kinds of files onto one of my
    >>> internal hard drives. Both the 32bit and 64bit editions of Vista beta 1
    >>> went to beta
    >>> testers today.
    >>>
    >>> Based on the axiety level I feel in your questions you probably are
    >>> not ready for 64bits unless your memory requirements are pretty
    >>> horrendous and you just have to go 64.
    >>>
    >>> Having said that, 64bits is here for real and momentum will build a
    >>> lot before the year is out.
    >>>
    >>> "g.07" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> I'm so confused with this new Windows X64. I'm a graphic designer
    >>>> and my pc
    >>>> is running with a AMD 64 bit processor in Windows Xp SP2, but I'm
    >>>> not sure
    >>>> or completely convinced in installing X64 in my system.
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) Will I have ANY problems running 32 bits software (Adobe,
    >>>> Macromedia, Chaoescope) in X64?
    >>>>
    >>>> 2)Will I be able to open archives and exchange info from 32 bits
    >>>> in a 64 bit
    >>>> application? For example: in the hypothetical case that there was a
    >>>> version
    >>>> of Adobe Illustrator CS for x64, could I Copy+paste info. from an
    >>>> older 32
    >>>> bit version of Illustrator to the new one as well as the other way
    >>>> around?
    >>>>
    >>>> 3) Will I be able to burn info from a 64 bit program and open it in
    >>>> another
    >>>> PC with another version of Windows (let's say Windows 2000) but in
    >>>> the same
    >>>> program? In the hypothetical case again: to open an archive made
    >>>> in "Photoshop CS 64" and open it in Photoshop 7 running in Windows
    >>>> 2000. 4) Archives made in a 32 bit program running in Windows X64 will
    >>>> open and be
    >>>> editable when passed to another computer running Windows XP SP2 or
    >>>> older versions of Windows?
    >>>>
    >>>> 5) With Windows Vista "a la vista" :) will there be a version of
    >>>> it for 64
    >>>> bits users?
    >>>>
    >>>> THANX
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 29, 2005
    #10
  11. Either one of us doesn't understand what multi-threading is (and I'm quite
    open to be proved that it's me), or we are meaning different things by it.

    As far as I'm concerned, every processor and operating system you can buy
    today is multi-threaded. If you can run an email client and web browser at
    the same time, then that proves that the OS and processor can handle threads
    from 2 applications at once, ergo multi-threading. However single cored
    CPU's manage this by time slicing the execution threads.

    The AMD Athlon 64 X2 series goes a step further than that by handling 2
    threads simultaneously, one on each core. So your statement that 64 bit
    systems and Athlon 64 X2's don't support multi-threading has floored me!

    "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

    > Not all 64bit systems support multithreading. My AMD Athlon 64 x2 does not.
    > However, if CS is multithreading the result on my system would be
    > multitasking at great advantage because of the dual cores.
    =?Utf-8?B?R3VpbHR5Q29s?=, Jul 29, 2005
    #11
  12. =?Utf-8?B?Zy4wNw==?=

    Default User Guest

    Multithreading is not a subset of multitasking. Intel has dual core chips
    in which each core can multithread. AMD does not yet. Here is a read
    (pardon me if you already know all this, just trying to help):
    http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/Code/2002/April/MtP1MtVsMt.asp

    "GuiltyCol" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Either one of us doesn't understand what multi-threading is (and I'm quite
    > open to be proved that it's me), or we are meaning different things by it.
    >
    > As far as I'm concerned, every processor and operating system you can buy
    > today is multi-threaded. If you can run an email client and web browser
    > at
    > the same time, then that proves that the OS and processor can handle
    > threads
    > from 2 applications at once, ergo multi-threading. However single cored
    > CPU's manage this by time slicing the execution threads.
    >
    > The AMD Athlon 64 X2 series goes a step further than that by handling 2
    > threads simultaneously, one on each core. So your statement that 64 bit
    > systems and Athlon 64 X2's don't support multi-threading has floored me!
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    >
    >> Not all 64bit systems support multithreading. My AMD Athlon 64 x2 does
    >> not.
    >> However, if CS is multithreading the result on my system would be
    >> multitasking at great advantage because of the dual cores.

    >
    >
    Default User, Jul 30, 2005
    #12
  13. > Multithreading is not a subset of multitasking.

    Ok fair enough, I was sloppy with my terminology, the email and browser
    scenario is an example of multi-tasking. However we should define what we
    mean by multi-threading. I was referring to the ability of an application to
    spawn multiple threads inside it's process, and have the CPU time-slice
    between the threads. As this happens very rapidly, it gives the impression
    that the multiple threads are executing concurrently, of course this is not
    so. You I think were referring to true thread concurrency, where 2 threads
    are executing at exactly the same time on different parts of the CPU.

    > Intel has dual core chips in which each core can multithread. AMD does not yet.


    Ok so I think we know what we're talking about, but back to this comment
    that AMD don't have chips that support this: the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series
    (newly out in the last few months) are true dual core CPUs. See here which
    shows 2 distinct cores:

    - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-04.html


    If you are referring to Intels Dual core with hyper-threading, like the
    Pentium D 840, yes this does give 4 logical processers as shown here:

    - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050405/pentium_d-03.html


    However Hyper-threading is not true dual core but does give a performance
    improvement that's true. See here:

    -
    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-06.html#hyperthreading_a_virtual_dual_cpu_system

    and:

    - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-01.html


    To prove the point that the 4 logical CPU's of the Intel flagship CPU do not
    perform, there are many benchmarks that show the AMD Atholn 64 X2 4800+ beats
    the Pentium D 840 hands down in most tests, starting here:

    - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-14.html


    However the most interesting benchmark I think is this one, take a look at
    the comparison between the 2 CPU's when running DOOM3 + Lame MP3 Encoding +
    WinRAR compression. If the Intel really did have 4 logical CPU's it should
    beat AMD's 2 with ease, yet it comes in second:

    - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-11.html


    Hmmm not really sure what I'm trying to argue anymore here, anyway, tis
    interesting. ;-)
    =?Utf-8?B?R3VpbHR5Q29s?=, Jul 30, 2005
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?Zy4wNw==?=

    John Barnes Guest

    At this point, Intel wins some and loses some, same with AMD. Really
    depends on the applications someone is going to run. Same with price until
    AMD comes out with cheaper x2's. Only place AMD wins hands down is they run
    cooler and use less power.


    "GuiltyCol" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Multithreading is not a subset of multitasking.

    >
    > Ok fair enough, I was sloppy with my terminology, the email and browser
    > scenario is an example of multi-tasking. However we should define what we
    > mean by multi-threading. I was referring to the ability of an application
    > to
    > spawn multiple threads inside it's process, and have the CPU time-slice
    > between the threads. As this happens very rapidly, it gives the
    > impression
    > that the multiple threads are executing concurrently, of course this is
    > not
    > so. You I think were referring to true thread concurrency, where 2
    > threads
    > are executing at exactly the same time on different parts of the CPU.
    >
    >> Intel has dual core chips in which each core can multithread. AMD does
    >> not yet.

    >
    > Ok so I think we know what we're talking about, but back to this comment
    > that AMD don't have chips that support this: the AMD Athlon 64 X2 series
    > (newly out in the last few months) are true dual core CPUs. See here
    > which
    > shows 2 distinct cores:
    >
    > - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-04.html
    >
    >
    > If you are referring to Intels Dual core with hyper-threading, like the
    > Pentium D 840, yes this does give 4 logical processers as shown here:
    >
    > - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050405/pentium_d-03.html
    >
    >
    > However Hyper-threading is not true dual core but does give a performance
    > improvement that's true. See here:
    >
    > -
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-06.html#hyperthreading_a_virtual_dual_cpu_system
    >
    > and:
    >
    > - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-01.html
    >
    >
    > To prove the point that the 4 logical CPU's of the Intel flagship CPU do
    > not
    > perform, there are many benchmarks that show the AMD Atholn 64 X2 4800+
    > beats
    > the Pentium D 840 hands down in most tests, starting here:
    >
    > - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-14.html
    >
    >
    > However the most interesting benchmark I think is this one, take a look at
    > the comparison between the 2 CPU's when running DOOM3 + Lame MP3 Encoding
    > +
    > WinRAR compression. If the Intel really did have 4 logical CPU's it
    > should
    > beat AMD's 2 with ease, yet it comes in second:
    >
    > - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-11.html
    >
    >
    > Hmmm not really sure what I'm trying to argue anymore here, anyway, tis
    > interesting. ;-)
    John Barnes, Jul 30, 2005
    #14
  15. Yes. And they have a significantly better memory management story when you
    get into multiple processors. I was just looking at the new iWill dual
    opteron board that supports up to 64Gb of RAM and dual core opterons. Fully
    loaded, that board gives you a 4-way NUMA architecture with 16GB per proc. At
    a price point that a human could almost afford.

    --
    Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
    ======================
    Charlie.
    http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


    John Barnes wrote:
    > At this point, Intel wins some and loses some, same with AMD. Really
    > depends on the applications someone is going to run. Same with price
    > until AMD comes out with cheaper x2's. Only place AMD wins hands
    > down is they run cooler and use less power.
    >
    >
    > "GuiltyCol" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>> Multithreading is not a subset of multitasking.

    >>
    >> Ok fair enough, I was sloppy with my terminology, the email and
    >> browser scenario is an example of multi-tasking. However we should
    >> define what we mean by multi-threading. I was referring to the
    >> ability of an application to
    >> spawn multiple threads inside it's process, and have the CPU
    >> time-slice between the threads. As this happens very rapidly, it
    >> gives the impression
    >> that the multiple threads are executing concurrently, of course this
    >> is not
    >> so. You I think were referring to true thread concurrency, where 2
    >> threads
    >> are executing at exactly the same time on different parts of the CPU.
    >>
    >>> Intel has dual core chips in which each core can multithread. AMD
    >>> does not yet.

    >>
    >> Ok so I think we know what we're talking about, but back to this
    >> comment that AMD don't have chips that support this: the AMD Athlon
    >> 64 X2 series (newly out in the last few months) are true dual core
    >> CPUs. See here which
    >> shows 2 distinct cores:
    >>
    >> - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-04.html
    >>
    >>
    >> If you are referring to Intels Dual core with hyper-threading, like
    >> the Pentium D 840, yes this does give 4 logical processers as shown
    >> here: - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050405/pentium_d-03.html
    >>
    >>
    >> However Hyper-threading is not true dual core but does give a
    >> performance improvement that's true. See here:
    >>
    >> -
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021114/p4_306ht-06.html#hyperthreading_a_virtual_dual_cpu_system
    >>
    >> and:
    >>
    >> - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-01.html
    >>
    >>
    >> To prove the point that the 4 logical CPU's of the Intel flagship
    >> CPU do not
    >> perform, there are many benchmarks that show the AMD Atholn 64 X2
    >> 4800+ beats
    >> the Pentium D 840 hands down in most tests, starting here:
    >>
    >> - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-14.html
    >>
    >>
    >> However the most interesting benchmark I think is this one, take a
    >> look at the comparison between the 2 CPU's when running DOOM3 + Lame
    >> MP3 Encoding +
    >> WinRAR compression. If the Intel really did have 4 logical CPU's it
    >> should
    >> beat AMD's 2 with ease, yet it comes in second:
    >>
    >> - http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050509/cual_core_athlon-11.html
    >>
    >>
    >> Hmmm not really sure what I'm trying to argue anymore here, anyway,
    >> tis interesting. ;-)
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 30, 2005
    #15
    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?ZmlsYnVydDE=?=

    Major problems roaming between access points

    =?Utf-8?B?ZmlsYnVydDE=?=, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,093
    =?Utf-8?B?ZmlsYnVydDE=?=
    Sep 18, 2004
  2. Jonathan

    Firefox 0.9.1 major bugs

    Jonathan, Jul 6, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    478
    Moz Champion
    Jul 8, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    527
    Leonidas Jones
    Jan 21, 2005
  4. Jay Calvert

    Major Phishing Hole Found In IE and OE

    Jay Calvert, Feb 17, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    479
    Michael J. Pelletier
    Feb 18, 2005
  5. XtreZ

    VLSM and EIGRP confussion

    XtreZ, Jun 29, 2007, in forum: General Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    987
    XtreZ
    Jun 29, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page