Re: ADT Pro With Windows 7 (64-Bit)

["Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkallal@msn.com>]

"larwe" <zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote in message 
277c32ea-3daa-43b0-a08e-4e44f2c50b98@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com">news:277c32ea-3daa-43b0-a08e-4e44f2c50b98@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 13, 6:40 pm, nyder <nyder...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > But there is no real justification for 64-bit mode in any likely
> > PC application, and so you are choosing to be an early adopter
>
> 64bit isn't new. So NO one is an early adopter by using a 64bit
> windows OS.

>Anyone who is using a niche/minority platform is an early adopter,

Says who?

A niche platform does not make one a early adopter. We can consider that 
using an apple II makes you a niche user today, but to state that means you 
are an early adopter  is not the same thing at all here.

>regardless of how long the platform has been available. Sure, 64-bit
OSes and even 64-bit Windows versions have been available for a long
time, but precious few people are using them for general computing.

Fine and in 1991 precious few people were using 32 bit computers.

It would be pretty silly to stand here and tell me that Intel and AMD wasted 
their money by adding 64 bit ability to their processors? Now I do not want 
to try to put words in your mouth and it clear you not made a claim that 
Intel and AMD wasted their time on 64 bit computing. however, you have made 
the point that you don't see much use for 64bit computers for the people 
here or in general.

As a hobbyist it rather cool that we have all these 64 bit features and 
abilities built into new processors, but we not using them? You would think 
the hobbyist group here would be the first group of people to start using 
these things, I'm not sure you should try to speak here for all hobbyists 
here.
(I don't think one can say that the people in this group for apple II 
computers are mainstream users? -- last time I looked most of us here are 
hobbyists).

Microsoft just announced that all new versions of SharePoint are going to be 
64 bit only. If you ever going to use your computer on the web, then chances 
are you're running software that is based on 64 bits (the search engine 
providers fall into this category also).

Furthermore, it was just announced about a month ago that Microsoft is 
releasing a 64 bit version of office (so called office 14, or aptly named 
office 2010).

It's also important to note that windows7 is going to ship with a virtual PC 
addition of Windows XP for compatibility issues. That pretty much means the 
right off the top if you're running anything in compatibility mode, you 
going to chew out likely about 1 gig of ram for that virtual session (and if 
you have more RAM, I'm sure some of us would give that windows xp session 
1.5 to 2GB of ram).

While there has been some physical address extensions (PAE) out for some 
time, the industry transition to 64 bits is well under its way. While it is 
the server side of things that is driving the 64 adoption, this is starting 
to change.

With windows 7 were seeing virtualization hit mainstream. Virtualization is 
going to really feed the need for end users to want and benefit from a 64 
bit OS.

Now it is very possible that you just don't see the benefits here here. 
perhaps you just here due to this being an Apple forum. I still have my 
Apple II running with a 10MB davong hard drive.

However, as a computer hobbyist I also play with and try/test/adopt all 
kinds of new platforms. Trying out different versions of Linux, different 
versions of server software, different versions of windows, the list goes 
on.

Looking at my virtual PC sessions as I run this, I count more then 12 
sessions. Most are not running right now, but I have DOS 5.0, windows 3.1, 
windows 98, windows 2003, Vista, windows 7, SharePoint and a whole bunch 
more (several editions of Linux etc) in those virtual sessions . And, of 
course I have a few apple II emulators in their also!

In other words a big part of the people who play with apple software today 
do so with an emulator. So, it is kind of strange that you don't see a need 
for 64 bit OS when speaking on a board that's full of people who use 
emulation software all the time!

I suppose it can be pointed out that windows 64 will consume most 32 bit 
applications in 32bit mode. The main problems tend to be driver issues as 
you mention.

I will accept that choosing a 64 bit version of an OS from a hobbyist point 
of view DOES make one an early adopter. On the other hand I thought that's 
pretty much the typical description of a computer hobbyist is. For the most 
part we tend to be early adopters. The fact that this is the exception for 
you does not really make this the case for most other computer hobbyists.

I get to talk to a lot of PC hobby builders, and guys who still build their 
own computers. I would say just about ALL OF them are now running 64 bit 
versions of OS now.

There are significant benefits to running 64 bit systems, and several of 
these issues are not only that of applications being limited. The OS can 
benefit from having more then 4 gig to manage all those applications .

There are also simple benefits like when you have a  file larger then 4 
gigs. A typical DVD file is larger then 4 gigs. You CANNOT memory map a 
simple DVD file into memory when you use a 32 bit OS (how silly is that!!). 
Again, you can break up the DVD file...but why do that if your processing 
that DVD?

There are also some BIG performance issues to be had when using code written 
for 64 bits (you working with larger chunks of data for each instruction).

>And you don't in fact need a 64-bit OS to support that. You only need
a 64-bit OS if you want each process to access an address space >4GB
efficiently.

It's not so easy in some cases, remember most windows code is re-entrant. 
That means if you have two copies of word running, there is only ONE copy of 
the code in memory, and then the memory for that application  is separated. 
This issue is not so much about one program having lots of memory, it is 
about he OS having that memory to manage those processes..

>Actually that was my suggestion, but I had to jump in on Michael's
side anyway because though you might take issue with the way he
phrased it, he's essentially right - vanishingly few PC applications
actually benefit from 64-bit support

True, but we "also" talking about running a OS.

Furthermore the lack of 64 bit applications is starting to change very 
quickly when the fact that we know products like Excel will be 64 bits in 
the next version. Select beta testing for office is going to start occurring 
next month in July. So, when you have Excel going to a 64 bit version, that 
not such a fringe type of application anymore...is it?

And, as I said, it is more then OS that benefits here. Some of those 
applications  in 64bit will run two, or even MORE times faster then the same 
code or program written in 32 bits. when the next version of office comes 
out, those power users when they're ordering their dell, you'll be able to 
order 64 bit version of office. Some of this those calculation intensive 
sheets will benefit enormously from this wider word space size of 64bits.


>Heck, few PC applications today even really take advantage of
multicores - it just so happens that synergistically, having multiple
cores allows separate processes to use the machine more efficiently.
There's no such happy accident with a 64-bit OS, and no reason to
upgrade unless you have a program that needs to random-access huge
datasets.

Well, throw in that win 7 will ship with windows XP Virtualization,  and the 
next version of office will have a 64 bit version, and it seems that the 
stars and planets are lining up quite nicely in the adoption rate for 64 bit 
computing.

64 bit computing is coming, and it's gonna go mainstream quite a bit faster 
than you realize.

And, there more benefits then just 4 gigs of ram....

-- 
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
pleaseNOOSpamKallal@msn.com