Guest John John Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? Bogey Man wrote: > "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message > news:eSgHo9PSIHA.5404@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > >> John Barnes wrote: >> >>> ...the server area which due to the larger memory requirements has >>> substantially adopted 64-bit and if I recall, server 2008 will be the >>> last one available in a 32-bit version. I suspect that it will be >>> many years before the consumer market has a need for 64-bit. >> >> >> Don't be so sure, game makers are always pushing the envelope. Also >> many home users do video editing or run other memory demanding >> applications (like PhotoShop), I think it won't be all that long that >> the 4GB barrier will be busted by many home users. Nowadays most new >> 32-bit machines ship with 2GB of RAM, anything in the order of 3GB to >> 4GB on 32-bit is pretty well a waste because of the hardware memory >> address space requirements so 64-bit for home users may be coming >> faster than we think. >> >> John > > > I think that Microsoft just blew it when they put out both 32 bit and 64 > bit versions of Vista. They should have just put out 64 bit versions and > announce at the same time that 32 bit operating systems would not be > supported after a certain date. Oh, I don't think that they did! Microsoft relies on a large established base of third party software and hardware to sell its new operating systems. By going exclusively 64-bit they would have alienated many customers and they would have had a barrage of criticism and complaints, it would have backfired on them. When Windows 95 was launched, and when pure 32-bit NT was designed a conscious decision was made to make all possible attempts to keep these operating systems compatible with MS-DOS programs or, in the case of NT, to incorporate a Virtual Engine to run the old 16-bit legacy applications. Microsoft knew that a large base of installed 16-bit applications existed and that launching an operating system that couldn't run these old applications was a recipe for disaster, it was a marketing/design decision that ultimately turned out to be key to the wide acceptance and success of the Windows operating system. If Microsoft had announced the end of 32-bit support with Vista it would have been a marketing disaster. It may not be important to you or many other users but I assure you that many will be on 32-bit for a while yet, that applies especially to the small/medium size business market. Contrary to what some might think most companies don't have unlimited amounts of money available to spend and even more surprising to some folks, computers and software are not the first place or most important place for these small firms to put their money. The need for financing of income producing assets usually comes before IT expenditures. In some of these small firms a considerable amount of money may have already been invested in software and hardware, spending even more to replace that software or hardware for no good reason other than "things run on 64-bit now" is simply not an option for most companies. The switch to 64-bit is underway and it is unavoidable but I think that if you had $50,000 of software or a $10,000 plotter that couldn't run on 64-bit you would not be so keen on making the switch! I know of doctors who have perfectly good medical imaging equipment worth more than $100,000 and that only run on DOS, these doctors have no intentions of replacing their old operating systems with 64-bit Vista! Less extreme than that are freelance professionals, or small manufacturing or engineering firms who have expensive drafting software and plotters, they too are in no hurry to spend $50,000 for new software and hardware just to be in the 64-bit loop! John
Guest Colin Barnhorst Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? Why? 32-bit stuff works fine. Why tell people they can't use it any more? The idea is for MS to help people to continue to run their software, not dictate to them what they should or should not do. The marketplace will dictate when it no longer makes any sense to continue with 32-bit software. "Bogey Man" <spam@kwic.com> wrote in message news:eM4AC4VSIHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message > news:eSgHo9PSIHA.5404@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> John Barnes wrote: >> >>> ...the server area which due to the larger memory requirements has >>> substantially adopted 64-bit and if I recall, server 2008 will be the >>> last one available in a 32-bit version. I suspect that it will be many >>> years before the consumer market has a need for 64-bit. >> >> Don't be so sure, game makers are always pushing the envelope. Also many >> home users do video editing or run other memory demanding applications >> (like PhotoShop), I think it won't be all that long that the 4GB barrier >> will be busted by many home users. Nowadays most new 32-bit machines >> ship with 2GB of RAM, anything in the order of 3GB to 4GB on 32-bit is >> pretty well a waste because of the hardware memory address space >> requirements so 64-bit for home users may be coming faster than we think. >> >> John > > I think that Microsoft just blew it when they put out both 32 bit and 64 > bit versions of Vista. They should have just put out 64 bit versions and > announce at the same time that 32 bit operating systems would not be > supported after a certain date.
Guest Marc Desiderius Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message > Microsoft has provided two stable 64-bit consumer operating systems. Geez, Barnes, M$ pays you for public relations? The reason the "two stable 64-bit consumer operating systems" are "stable," is because they lack third party driver/software support. I am sure you figured this out for yourself, didn't you?
Guest Marc Desiderius Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message > It would appear that the lack of research was on the part of someone who > bought an operating system for which they had no need, neither on the > hardware or software side. :-) I agree with you, sort of like buying a can of sardines in the grocery store thinking it was a can of Caviar :-)
Guest Marc Desiderius Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "Bogey Man" <spam@kwic.com> wrote in message > I think that Microsoft just blew it when they put out both 32 bit and 64 > bit versions of Vista. It doesn't really matter because, according to the press, neither one is ready for prime time, just like Linux he he he. Besides, I read somewhere that the 32 bit version of Vista runs slower than the 32 bit version of XP
Guest Bo Persson Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? Nero wrote: :: John Barnes wrote: ::: Microsoft has provided two stable 64-bit consumer operating ::: systems. That very few other manufacturers have seen fit to ::: provide 64-bit product probably relates to the lack of need ::: within most consumer products for greater that 32-bit support. :: :: You are saying in essence that Microsoft really flopped when it :: comes to consumer research and marketing intelligence. I agree :: with you :) The reason for Microsoft to release XP-64 was that they had promised AMD to do so. What else should an Athlon 64 use for an OS?! Bo Persson
Guest Colin Barnhorst Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? MS released XP Pro x64 as the client for Windows Server 2003 x64 and for workstation users. The memory limitations of x86 was probably the biggest reason workstation users wanted it. "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> wrote in message news:5tkodrF1dnoepU1@mid.individual.net... > Nero wrote: > :: John Barnes wrote: > ::: Microsoft has provided two stable 64-bit consumer operating > ::: systems. That very few other manufacturers have seen fit to > ::: provide 64-bit product probably relates to the lack of need > ::: within most consumer products for greater that 32-bit support. > :: > :: You are saying in essence that Microsoft really flopped when it > :: comes to consumer research and marketing intelligence. I agree > :: with you :) > > The reason for Microsoft to release XP-64 was that they had promised AMD > to do so. What else should an Athlon 64 use for an OS?! > > > Bo Persson > >
Guest Homer J. Simpson Posted December 28, 2007 Posted December 28, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? >> Microsoft has provided two stable 64-bit consumer operating systems. > > Geez, Barnes, M$ pays you for public relations? > > The reason the "two stable 64-bit consumer operating systems" are > "stable," is because they lack third party driver/software support. I am > sure you figured this out for yourself, didn't you? I'm not sure where you're going with this. If you're trying to say that shoddy drivers are more prone to take down an OS (*any* OS), then yeah, that's common knowledge and should be no surprise to anyone. As for myself, I've been using XP x64 as my primary OS since mid-2005 or so, and I can't think of any hardware I have that doesn't have good drivers. The last time I saw a BSOD was due to a bad third-party RAID driver.
Guest Bogey Man Posted December 29, 2007 Posted December 29, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:OHhylhWSIHA.6036@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Bogey Man wrote: >> "John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message >> news:eSgHo9PSIHA.5404@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >>> John Barnes wrote: Snip-------------------------- > I know of doctors who have perfectly good medical imaging equipment worth > more than $100,000 and that only run on DOS, these doctors have no > intentions of replacing their old operating systems with 64-bit Vista! > Less extreme than that are freelance professionals, or small manufacturing > or engineering firms who have expensive drafting software and plotters, > they too are in no hurry to spend $50,000 for new software and hardware > just to be in the 64-bit loop! > > John If these people have no intention of changing software, why change operating systems? Vista 32 offers nothing of value over XP except for annoyances and would be a waste of resources to invest in an operating system that in reality offers most people nothing worth the money.....if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Guest Bogey Man Posted December 29, 2007 Posted December 29, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message news:AF140EA7-85D3-48B8-9E12-3F150418622F@microsoft.com... > Why? 32-bit stuff works fine. Why tell people they can't use it any > more? The idea is for MS to help people to continue to run their software, > not dictate to them what they should or should not do. The marketplace > will dictate when it no longer makes any sense to continue with 32-bit > software. People will run whatever they have as long as it works and is supported. Take that support away and they will eventually change. -- Ron P Member of the ignored generation
Guest Bogey Man Posted December 29, 2007 Posted December 29, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "Marc Desiderius" <lmarcode@lefeuvre.net> wrote in message news:4775209b$0$8817$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Bogey Man" <spam@kwic.com> wrote in message > >> I think that Microsoft just blew it when they put out both 32 bit and 64 >> bit versions of Vista. > > It doesn't really matter because, according to the press, neither one is > ready for prime time, just like Linux he he he. Besides, I read somewhere > that the 32 bit version of Vista runs slower than the 32 bit version of XP It must have been are real reliable and famous source if you can't remember it.
Guest John Barnes Posted December 29, 2007 Posted December 29, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? You do sound like someone who is scared to make up their mind and NEEDS someone else to do it for you. You must feel really insecure having made the move to 64-bit and looking around and seeing most people happy and functionally rewarded staying with 32-bit. Many still have functional and necessary programs that are 16-bit and won't run on 64-bit Windows. May I suggest that you would probably be more comfortable in Cuba or North Korea where you won't have to feel insecure about your decisions and you won't even need to make them. Microsoft is not autocratic over the market and will provide what the customers (end users and builders) want, which will be influenced by their comfort level and future needs. "Bogey Man" <spam@kwic.com> wrote in message news:uplV1liSIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message > news:AF140EA7-85D3-48B8-9E12-3F150418622F@microsoft.com... >> Why? 32-bit stuff works fine. Why tell people they can't use it any >> more? The idea is for MS to help people to continue to run their >> software, not dictate to them what they should or should not do. The >> marketplace will dictate when it no longer makes any sense to continue >> with 32-bit software. > > People will run whatever they have as long as it works and is supported. > Take that support away and they will eventually change. > -- > Ron P > > Member of the ignored generation
Guest Colin Barnhorst Posted December 29, 2007 Posted December 29, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? If their stuff works, why should they change? "Bogey Man" <spam@kwic.com> wrote in message news:uplV1liSIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message > news:AF140EA7-85D3-48B8-9E12-3F150418622F@microsoft.com... >> Why? 32-bit stuff works fine. Why tell people they can't use it any >> more? The idea is for MS to help people to continue to run their >> software, not dictate to them what they should or should not do. The >> marketplace will dictate when it no longer makes any sense to continue >> with 32-bit software. > > People will run whatever they have as long as it works and is supported. > Take that support away and they will eventually change. > -- > Ron P > > Member of the ignored generation
Guest Bogey Man Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message news:%23WNI4UjSIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > You do sound like someone who is scared to make up their mind and NEEDS > someone else to do it for you. You must feel really insecure having made > the move to 64-bit and looking around and seeing most people happy and > functionally rewarded staying with 32-bit. Many still have functional and > necessary programs that are 16-bit and won't run on 64-bit Windows. > May I suggest that you would probably be more comfortable in Cuba or North > Korea where you won't have to feel insecure about your decisions and you > won't even need to make them. > Microsoft is not autocratic over the market and will provide what the > customers (end users and builders) want, which will be influenced by their > comfort level and future needs. > > "Bogey Man" <spam@kwic.com> wrote in message > news:uplV1liSIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst@msn.com> wrote in message >> news:AF140EA7-85D3-48B8-9E12-3F150418622F@microsoft.com... >>> Why? 32-bit stuff works fine. Why tell people they can't use it any >>> more? The idea is for MS to help people to continue to run their >>> software, not dictate to them what they should or should not do. The >>> marketplace will dictate when it no longer makes any sense to continue >>> with 32-bit software. >> >> People will run whatever they have as long as it works and is supported. >> Take that support away and they will eventually change. >> -- >> Ron P >> >> Member of the ignored generation If you are referring to me, I am not the least bit insecure about 64 bit and am due to change my computer and when I do it will be a massive change. When I change, I will change everything that I can to 64 bit at the same time. I will however have to be patient because what I want isn't available at a price that I am willing to pay. I want to get a computer with multiple cores like dual quad cores and at least 8 gigs of ram expandable to at least 16 gigs or more. I also want 4 SATA drives of at least 500 gigs each. Until software and hardware manufacturers climb on the 64 bit band wagon, there is little point in buying equipment that I will just have to replace because it isn't up to what I want to do.
Guest Chris Campbell Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message > Microsoft is not autocratic over the market and will provide what the > customers (end users and builders) want, which will be influenced by their > comfort level and future needs. Are you on crack?
Guest Chris Campbell Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "Bogey Man" <spam@kwic.com> wrote in message > I want to get a computer with multiple cores like dual quad cores and at > least 8 gigs of ram expandable to at least 16 gigs or more. I also want 4 > SATA drives of at least 500 gigs each. I have multiple cores but that doesn't mean didley as far as I am concerned. My mothrboard consists of (2) dual core Zeons, 4 gigs of DDR2 ECC memory, 640 meg Nvidia 8800 GTS, and xp32/xp64 operating system. Had I not used Windoze and used instead a true multitasking OS, I probaly would have noticed the speed my expensive hardware generates, but the speed advantage is very small, hardly noticeable. My advice to you is: save your money for something else. Dual-cores, quad-cores in my opinion are not what they meant to be, really, other than noisy heat generators
Guest John Barnes Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? XP64 is an excellent multi-tasking OS, Vista64 not so IMO. Since virtually all programs will only run on one core at a time, the benefit of multi-core is that system tasks can be run on the other core instead of multi-plexing on the single core or a second program can run on a second core etc. with system task multiplexing. Many make the mistake of buying a multi core processor with a slower speed on each core than they had on a previous single core processor and will experience little improvement or slower execution. "Chris Campbell" <chris340@eartstat.net> wrote in message news:4777e24a$0$8827$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "Bogey Man" <spam@kwic.com> wrote in message >> I want to get a computer with multiple cores like dual quad cores and at >> least 8 gigs of ram expandable to at least 16 gigs or more. I also want 4 >> SATA drives of at least 500 gigs each. > > I have multiple cores but that doesn't mean didley as far as I am > concerned. My mothrboard consists of (2) dual core Zeons, 4 gigs of DDR2 > ECC memory, 640 meg Nvidia 8800 GTS, and xp32/xp64 operating system. > > Had I not used Windoze and used instead a true multitasking OS, I probaly > would have noticed the speed my expensive hardware generates, but the > speed advantage is very small, hardly noticeable. My advice to you is: > save your money for something else. Dual-cores, quad-cores in my opinion > are not what they meant to be, really, other than noisy heat generators >
Guest John Barnes Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? Ad hominem comment says it all. "Chris Campbell" <chris340@eartstat.net> wrote in message news:4777dec8$0$8847$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... > > "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message > >> Microsoft is not autocratic over the market and will provide what the >> customers (end users and builders) want, which will be influenced by >> their comfort level and future needs. > > Are you on crack? >
Guest Chris Campbell Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message > XP64 is an excellent multi-tasking OS, Vista64 not so IMO. Sorry, dude, if you think Windoze is an "excellent multi-tasker," your either not old enough to know what REAL TIME multi-tasking is or, you never used anything else other than Windoze :(
Guest Homer J. Simpson Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? >> XP64 is an excellent multi-tasking OS, Vista64 not so IMO. > > Sorry, dude, if you think Windoze is an "excellent multi-tasker," your > either not old enough to know what REAL TIME multi-tasking is or, you > never used anything else other than Windoze :( Sure, Windows might not be a realtime multitasking OS, but by any other measure, it's certainly "good enough" for us mere schmucks. Wow, some people really take offense to these type of things, don't they.
Guest Zootal Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "Homer J. Simpson" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:uXytq$7SIHA.1924@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> XP64 is an excellent multi-tasking OS, Vista64 not so IMO. >> >> Sorry, dude, if you think Windoze is an "excellent multi-tasker," your >> either not old enough to know what REAL TIME multi-tasking is or, you >> never used anything else other than Windoze :( > > Sure, Windows might not be a realtime multitasking OS, but by any other > measure, it's certainly "good enough" for us mere schmucks. > > Wow, some people really take offense to these type of things, don't they. Windows is a preemptive multi-tasking operating system, period. I would consider it to be real-time by definition, but I certainly would not give it a rating of "excellent". And I would *never* use it for critical tasks, such as landing aircraft, life support equipment operation, etc. I can see it now - grandpa laying dead in his hospital bed because the heart monitor decided to BSOD instead of alerting the nurses of a problem. Or 500 people dead because a 747 splatted on a mountain side because explorer.exe was consuming 99.9%cpu and the auto-nav program wasn't getting enough cpu cycles (so much for pre-emptive....). I would also call it good enough for schmucks like me. I run 3 Half-Life servers on a single core box, and they perform very well. Good enough for anything that isn't critical or very important. Here is a bit of perspective: When I was working with Infohub schemas for vsam files on an IBM mainframe, I found it was very easy to shut out all of the other users by simply running a poorly optimized query. Our wonderful, very expensive, real-time multi-tasking operating system fell over and barfed on the floor. Going back several years - my first OS was Vortex II on Varian V76 micros. Another preemptive multi-tasking OS that worked good when it worked, and was miserable otherwise. Even "excellent" operating systems have their quirks, and can be crashed. Windows just happens to be close to the bottom of the food chain when it comes to reliability.
Guest John Barnes Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? Personally I have found that XP64 splits the tasks pretty well, not overloading one core and leaving the other practically idle. Vista64 on the other hand I have tasks hang because one core is topped out while the other sits at <10%. Setting the affinity and/or priority of the tasks does solve most of these problems manually, and should help save your 747. :-) "Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23O9yBt9SIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "Homer J. Simpson" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message > news:uXytq$7SIHA.1924@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> XP64 is an excellent multi-tasking OS, Vista64 not so IMO. >>> >>> Sorry, dude, if you think Windoze is an "excellent multi-tasker," your >>> either not old enough to know what REAL TIME multi-tasking is or, you >>> never used anything else other than Windoze :( >> >> Sure, Windows might not be a realtime multitasking OS, but by any other >> measure, it's certainly "good enough" for us mere schmucks. >> >> Wow, some people really take offense to these type of things, don't they. > > Windows is a preemptive multi-tasking operating system, period. I would > consider it to be real-time by definition, but I certainly would not give > it a rating of "excellent". And I would *never* use it for critical tasks, > such as landing aircraft, life support equipment operation, etc. I can see > it now - grandpa laying dead in his hospital bed because the heart monitor > decided to BSOD instead of alerting the nurses of a problem. Or 500 people > dead because a 747 splatted on a mountain side because explorer.exe was > consuming 99.9%cpu and the auto-nav program wasn't getting enough cpu > cycles (so much for pre-emptive....). > > I would also call it good enough for schmucks like me. I run 3 Half-Life > servers on a single core box, and they perform very well. Good enough for > anything that isn't critical or very important. > > Here is a bit of perspective: When I was working with Infohub schemas for > vsam files on an IBM mainframe, I found it was very easy to shut out all > of the other users by simply running a poorly optimized query. Our > wonderful, very expensive, real-time multi-tasking operating system fell > over and barfed on the floor. Going back several years - my first OS was > Vortex II on Varian V76 micros. Another preemptive multi-tasking OS that > worked good when it worked, and was miserable otherwise. Even "excellent" > operating systems have their quirks, and can be crashed. Windows just > happens to be close to the bottom of the food chain when it comes to > reliability. >
Guest Chris Campbell Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message news:% ------------snip------------ > Here is a bit of perspective: -------------snip----------- Booooring................... :(
Guest Chris Campbell Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message > Personally I have found that XP64 splits the tasks pretty well, not > overloading one core and leaving the other practically idle. Vista64 on > the other hand I have tasks hang because one core is topped out while the > other sits at <10%. Are you saying Vista is shit? Hey, Microsoft, are you reading this?
Guest Zootal Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows? > ------------snip------------ >> Here is a bit of perspective: > -------------snip----------- > > Booooring................... :( > Not to those of us that were there :-)
Recommended Posts