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

[larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com>]

On Jun 14, 6:59 am, "Albert D. Kallal" <PleaseNOOOsPAMmkal...@msn.com>
wrote:

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

Okay, if you have trouble with the semantics - it's a matter of how
things pan out. If NeXT had become the dominant computing platform,
then everyone who owns a cube would have been an early adopter. As
things turned out, they were just niche users. Right now 64-bit
Windows is in the same ballpark - small number of users, small number
of developers. I've been generous and assumed it will become the
dominant platform - hence we call them "early adopters" and not
"tinkerers".

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

So? There were compelling reasons to upgrade. A 386DX is much faster
and more capable than a 286, and it's not from the 32-bit datapath
either.

Read the industry rags - computer manufacturers everywhere are
complaining that netbooks are "all the computer anyone needs" and
that's why they can't sell more expensive machines. And if the cloud
computing hype (or "NC, round 2, 2009 edition") takes off, there will
be even less reason to have big iron on the desktop.

> 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.

I said there is no reason to upgrade unless you have a program that
will actually benefit.

Nobody - not even myself in my Team OS/2 days - buys a computer to run
an operating system.

> 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

*We* are not using them, developers are using them. Maybe. Do you
write Windows programs? Do you write Windows programs built for 64
bits? Do they perform measurably differently from the same program
compiled for 32 bits?

> are you're running software that is based on 64 bits (the search engine
> providers fall into this category also).

Hey, guess what - search engines fall into the category of "software
that needs to random-access a large dataset". And most people do not
need one running under their desk.

> 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

Which is part of their effort to migrate people away from older
Windows versions; eventually they will doubtless stop supporting 32-
bit apps at all. While I agree it will happen, it's very much a case
of the tail wagging the dog.

> 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

Translation: because so little runs on Vista/Win7. This is WOW
(Windows On Windows, the Win16 subsystem in Win32 OSes) all over
again.

> 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).

Wait a moment... so you're telling me that we need 64-bit Windows to
support applications that wouldn't be necessary if the machine was
running a 32-bit OS to begin with?

> 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.

You really ought to read my resume - http://www.larwe.com/resume.html

> 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!!).

Hey, guess what (yes, I'm parroting) - This is an example of a
software application that requires (though I can't see why) random
access to a large dataset.

But, by the way, how many people ever need to access a DVD randomly?
They access it sequentially. MPEG-2 can't really be decoded backwards,
because the order of P and B frames relative to their parent I frame
is important. Why on earth would you want to map the whole file to
play or transcode it? If you want to do nonlinear editing on MPEG-2
you really need to cache the uncompressed codec output.

> 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.

Yes, and it is readonly, and mapped to the same virtual addresses in
two VMs. The _writable_ heap area is separate in the two VMs. So each
executing instance of that single copy of Word has a full 4GB address
space (less OS reserved address space overhead, which IIRC in Windows
is 2GB).

> 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

LOL. See above, and comments about netbooks. Sure, "power users" will
order the most expensive thing, because it's their function to support
the economy that way. But this has nothing to do with whether they
will be any more productive with those expensive toys.

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

Perhaps we are arguing about different things. I fully agree that
eventually there will be only 64-bit Windows, and with time even the
32-bit emulation sandbox will probably vanish (the same way IOPL for
DOS apps disappeared, so DOS games can't comfortably run in XP without
third-party software).

However at this point in time, right now in 2009, to upgrade to 64-bit
Windows is simply to live the Vista upgrade nightmare all over again.
Very little software and device drivers will work - most software
isn't written by Microsoft, you know. No actual performance gain you
care about will be realized. And you'll need to have more RAM due to
increased overheads.

Ride the bleeding edge all you like, but proselytizing it is a bit
pointless - people who enjoy pain are already clutching the blade on
either side of you, and the rest of us who need to get some work done
simply don't care.