Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows?

[Guest John John]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :-)