Is 64-bit OS (Vista) a scam or a reality ?

[Rob]

I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers here.

Can someone confirm this ?

 

[Dangit]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:26:03 -0700, Rob wrote:

> I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit OS that works as
> advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor manufacturers are
> actually out in front of the software developers here.
>
> Can someone confirm this ?

How are they advertised? Linux 64-bit works as well as I've read it does.
But I can't say if the same applies to whatever you've been reading.

The real surprise would be if Vista, or any other product from MS, did
work as advertised. 64-bit or no.

 

[Andrew McLaren]

"Rob" <landrobert@gmail.com> wrote ...
>I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers here.
> Can someone confirm this ?

Hey Rob,

I doubt anyone can "confirm" this, because it's largely a matter of opinion
rather than right/wrong fact. Get ready for a storm of unsubstantiated
opinions in the replies

FWIW, I've been running 64-bit Vista on my main desktop machine since the
Vista beta programme, 12+ months ago. I am very happy with 64-bit Vista, it
works well. All my devices have drivers, and all my apps all work fine. But,
I'm a reasonably proficient user and willing to absorb some pain to be on
the bleeding edge. I also happen to have a 32-bit laptop permanently within
reach, for those few occassions when only 32-bits will do (eg, running old
16-bit DOS and Win3.x apps).

Hardware has *always* been somewhat in advance of software that's just the
nature of the beast. As a period of transition, today closely resembles the
move from 16-bits to 32-bits, circa 1992 (when 32 bit OS/2 2.0 shipped) to
1996 (when Windows 95 overtook Windows 3.x in sales). The first Intel 32-bit
80386 CPU was introduced in 1986, before even Windows 2.03 shipped, let
alone 32-bit Windows NT or 95. Lots of folks continued to happily run 16-bit
Windows 3.x on 386 CPUs for many years, until Windows 95 made 32-bit Windows
desktops near-universal, and 8086/80286 machines vanished from the shelves.
Today, it's almost impossible to buy a new computer with a 32-bit CPU
they're nearly all 64-bit capable. It's just a matter of time for 64 bit
Windows (and Mac OS X, and Linux, and Solaris) to become standard across the
board. There will be a bumpy transitition period for a couple of years,
then we'll look back and laugh about when we all ran 32-bit computers.

Plenty of mainframe users today run 31-bit OS/390 on 64-bit zSeries
architecture, and fret about the transition to 64 bit z/OS. The problem is
not unique to the PC world!

The main thing is: 64-bit isn't intrinsically "good", in and of itself. It's
only "good" to the extent that it makes the computer a useful tool. If a
user's situation is such they are better off running 32-bit Windows, then
that's absolutely what they should be using. Hell, there are plenty of
machines running DOS even today, tucked away in dark corners, quietly
running apps that have been useful since 1987. With the general move to rich
multimedia data handling on PCs and the enormous objects this involves, plus
cheap massive storage (1 Terbyte hard disks are now a consumer item), and
cheap memory (4GB RAM is becoming common) there will be many opportunities
for 64-bit applications to be truly useful in the coming years.

That's my 2 cents ...
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

 

[Ian Betts]

The good old days reviewed. That should help some folk understand a little
more. Like you I run 32 and 64 to be able to run all software. It a good
test bed.



--
Ian

"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:40F9CAE0-1C32-4642-A07D-3E02AC3B9FA8@microsoft.com...
> "Rob" <landrobert@gmail.com> wrote ...
>>I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
>> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
>> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers here.
>> Can someone confirm this ?
>
> Hey Rob,
>
> I doubt anyone can "confirm" this, because it's largely a matter of
> opinion rather than right/wrong fact. Get ready for a storm of
> unsubstantiated opinions in the replies
>
> FWIW, I've been running 64-bit Vista on my main desktop machine since the
> Vista beta programme, 12+ months ago. I am very happy with 64-bit Vista,
> it works well. All my devices have drivers, and all my apps all work fine.
> But, I'm a reasonably proficient user and willing to absorb some pain to
> be on the bleeding edge. I also happen to have a 32-bit laptop permanently
> within reach, for those few occassions when only 32-bits will do (eg,
> running old 16-bit DOS and Win3.x apps).
>
> Hardware has *always* been somewhat in advance of software that's just
> the nature of the beast. As a period of transition, today closely
> resembles the move from 16-bits to 32-bits, circa 1992 (when 32 bit OS/2
> 2.0 shipped) to 1996 (when Windows 95 overtook Windows 3.x in sales). The
> first Intel 32-bit 80386 CPU was introduced in 1986, before even Windows
> 2.03 shipped, let alone 32-bit Windows NT or 95. Lots of folks continued
> to happily run 16-bit Windows 3.x on 386 CPUs for many years, until
> Windows 95 made 32-bit Windows desktops near-universal, and 8086/80286
> machines vanished from the shelves. Today, it's almost impossible to buy a
> new computer with a 32-bit CPU they're nearly all 64-bit capable. It's
> just a matter of time for 64 bit Windows (and Mac OS X, and Linux, and
> Solaris) to become standard across the board. There will be a bumpy
> transitition period for a couple of years, then we'll look back and laugh
> about when we all ran 32-bit computers.
>
> Plenty of mainframe users today run 31-bit OS/390 on 64-bit zSeries
> architecture, and fret about the transition to 64 bit z/OS. The problem is
> not unique to the PC world!
>
> The main thing is: 64-bit isn't intrinsically "good", in and of itself.
> It's only "good" to the extent that it makes the computer a useful tool.
> If a user's situation is such they are better off running 32-bit Windows,
> then that's absolutely what they should be using. Hell, there are plenty
> of machines running DOS even today, tucked away in dark corners, quietly
> running apps that have been useful since 1987. With the general move to
> rich multimedia data handling on PCs and the enormous objects this
> involves, plus cheap massive storage (1 Terbyte hard disks are now a
> consumer item), and cheap memory (4GB RAM is becoming common) there will
> be many opportunities for 64-bit applications to be truly useful in the
> coming years.
>
> That's my 2 cents ...
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
>

 

[Andrew McLaren]

"Ian Betts" <igb123@talktalk.net> wrote ...
> The good old days reviewed. That should help some folk understand a little
> more.

Or for that matter, the dangerous leap from 8-bit CP/M to 16-bit MS-DOS!

I almost mentioned the radical transition from 16-bit PDP-11 and RSX, to
32-bit VAX and VMS.

But then I thought: this might not be an enlightening analogy, for many
folks ...

For completeness, I should also say the ILLIAC IV was a 64 bit machine, back
in 1975!!! 64-bit computing is not new.

--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

 

[carl feredeck]

Your understanding of computer history is inaccurate to say the least.
Software needs was always the pushing factor in hardware.. and hardware
always was behind from day one, when they were trying to crack German codes
in WWII.

If you are talking about windows, well windows vista especially is a bloat
monster badly written badly coded and badly redesigned. All changes from
winXP were bad... and they call this an improvement. Vista is 10 years
behind what could be done with technology and is a joke. The mere fact that
you accept using such an OS shows how much you know, and you have the nerve
to try to lecture us on computer history?

> That's my 2 cents ...

Not worth a penny.

"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:40F9CAE0-1C32-4642-A07D-3E02AC3B9FA8@microsoft.com...
> "Rob" <landrobert@gmail.com> wrote ...
>>I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
>> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
>> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers here.
>> Can someone confirm this ?
>
> Hey Rob,
>
> I doubt anyone can "confirm" this, because it's largely a matter of
> opinion rather than right/wrong fact. Get ready for a storm of
> unsubstantiated opinions in the replies
>
> FWIW, I've been running 64-bit Vista on my main desktop machine since the
> Vista beta programme, 12+ months ago. I am very happy with 64-bit Vista,
> it works well. All my devices have drivers, and all my apps all work fine.
> But, I'm a reasonably proficient user and willing to absorb some pain to
> be on the bleeding edge. I also happen to have a 32-bit laptop permanently
> within reach, for those few occassions when only 32-bits will do (eg,
> running old 16-bit DOS and Win3.x apps).
>
> Hardware has *always* been somewhat in advance of software that's just
> the nature of the beast. As a period of transition, today closely
> resembles the move from 16-bits to 32-bits, circa 1992 (when 32 bit OS/2
> 2.0 shipped) to 1996 (when Windows 95 overtook Windows 3.x in sales). The
> first Intel 32-bit 80386 CPU was introduced in 1986, before even Windows
> 2.03 shipped, let alone 32-bit Windows NT or 95. Lots of folks continued
> to happily run 16-bit Windows 3.x on 386 CPUs for many years, until
> Windows 95 made 32-bit Windows desktops near-universal, and 8086/80286
> machines vanished from the shelves. Today, it's almost impossible to buy a
> new computer with a 32-bit CPU they're nearly all 64-bit capable. It's
> just a matter of time for 64 bit Windows (and Mac OS X, and Linux, and
> Solaris) to become standard across the board. There will be a bumpy
> transitition period for a couple of years, then we'll look back and laugh
> about when we all ran 32-bit computers.
>
> Plenty of mainframe users today run 31-bit OS/390 on 64-bit zSeries
> architecture, and fret about the transition to 64 bit z/OS. The problem is
> not unique to the PC world!
>
> The main thing is: 64-bit isn't intrinsically "good", in and of itself.
> It's only "good" to the extent that it makes the computer a useful tool.
> If a user's situation is such they are better off running 32-bit Windows,
> then that's absolutely what they should be using. Hell, there are plenty
> of machines running DOS even today, tucked away in dark corners, quietly
> running apps that have been useful since 1987. With the general move to
> rich multimedia data handling on PCs and the enormous objects this
> involves, plus cheap massive storage (1 Terbyte hard disks are now a
> consumer item), and cheap memory (4GB RAM is becoming common) there will
> be many opportunities for 64-bit applications to be truly useful in the
> coming years.
>
> That's my 2 cents ...
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>

 

[HeyBub]

Rob wrote:
> I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers
> here.
>
> Can someone confirm this ?

By definition almost, the hardware is out in front of the software.

A bus driver can't do much without a bus, a cook can't fix dinner without a
stove,...

 

[carl feredeck]

No... that is incorrect!

First people have an idea to do something with software.. they start working
on it but then see they need more hardware power to achieve their goal, then
the new hardware is built.
Its how its always been... and remember what you get as a final consumer has
been experimented on years before!

The flame that fuels this progress is the software... then the hardware is
created.

Of course AFTER the hardware is created, other software's take advantage of
it.

For example if one day some OS developers start thinking about making 128
bit OS's they will ask for prototypes of 128bit CPUs to be created so they
can start working on the OS design. It was the SOFTWARE they had in mind
that fueled the creation of the hardware.

The hardware companies just didn't say... ok we don't have much to do.. heck
lets create a 128 bit CPU just for fun even if no one will ever need it! lol



"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O%23Pz9DtyHHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Rob wrote:
>> I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
>> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
>> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers
>> here.
>>
>> Can someone confirm this ?
>
> By definition almost, the hardware is out in front of the software.
>
> A bus driver can't do much without a bus, a cook can't fix dinner without
> a stove,...
>

 

[Adam Albright]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:26:03 -0700, Rob <landrobert@gmail.com> wrote:

>I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
>OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
>manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers here.
>
>Can someone confirm this ?

Software vendors and hardware vendors have always been in a game of
leap frog with one group jumping ahead of the other, then flip
flopping.

There is no good reason...yet, for most people to have a 64-bit system
for the simple fact there isn't that much FULLY supported hardware or
software to make it a practical choice UNLESS you only use your
computer for a very narrow focus and you know with a certainty
everything you'll ever use such a system for already has well tested
drivers and intelligently written software that fully takes advantage
of the hardware. If not, you're just wasting your money. Things will
change in time, we're not there yet.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

A cook can fix dinner without a stove. Our cook uses the oven!


"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O%23Pz9DtyHHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Rob wrote:
>> I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
>> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
>> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers
>> here.
>>
>> Can someone confirm this ?
>
> By definition almost, the hardware is out in front of the software.
>
> A bus driver can't do much without a bus, a cook can't fix dinner without
> a stove,...
>

 

[ray]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:26:03 -0700, Rob wrote:

> I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers here.
>
> Can someone confirm this ?

No. Because it is not true. I used, for example, DEC Tru64 Unix for
several years on the DEC Alpha - it was absolutely rock solid. I
understand that a number of 64 bit Linux distributions work quite well,
though I have not tried them.

 

[XS11E]

"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

> "Ian Betts" <igb123@talktalk.net> wrote ...
>> The good old days reviewed. That should help some folk understand
>> a little more.
>
> Or for that matter, the dangerous leap from 8-bit CP/M to 16-bit
> MS-DOS!

After adjusting to the upgrade from stone tablets to papyrus I thought
we were through with this advancing technology crap but noooooo....



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

 

[XS11E]

"carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote:

> If you are talking about windows, well windows vista especially is
> a bloat monster badly written badly coded and badly redesigned.
> All changes from winXP were bad...

Carl has made similar ignorant statements in other groups, ignore the
troll.


--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

 

[Adam Albright]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:25:38 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>"carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you are talking about windows, well windows vista especially is
>> a bloat monster badly written badly coded and badly redesigned.
>> All changes from winXP were bad...
>
>Carl has made similar ignorant statements in other groups, ignore the
>troll.


Typical fanboy thinking, if somebody makes a point and is different
than your OPINION label them a troll.

So sixth grade, but hey, this newsgroup is infested with thirty, forty
and fifty something six graders.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

You are right. Your comments......Not worth a penny.


"carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote in message
news:46a08fef@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> Your understanding of computer history is inaccurate to say the least.
> Software needs was always the pushing factor in hardware.. and hardware
> always was behind from day one, when they were trying to crack German
> codes in WWII.
>
> If you are talking about windows, well windows vista especially is a bloat
> monster badly written badly coded and badly redesigned. All changes from
> winXP were bad... and they call this an improvement. Vista is 10 years
> behind what could be done with technology and is a joke. The mere fact
> that you accept using such an OS shows how much you know, and you have the
> nerve to try to lecture us on computer history?
>
>> That's my 2 cents ...
>
> Not worth a penny.
>
> "Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:40F9CAE0-1C32-4642-A07D-3E02AC3B9FA8@microsoft.com...
>> "Rob" <landrobert@gmail.com> wrote ...
>>>I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
>>> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
>>> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers here.
>>> Can someone confirm this ?
>>
>> Hey Rob,
>>
>> I doubt anyone can "confirm" this, because it's largely a matter of
>> opinion rather than right/wrong fact. Get ready for a storm of
>> unsubstantiated opinions in the replies
>>
>> FWIW, I've been running 64-bit Vista on my main desktop machine since the
>> Vista beta programme, 12+ months ago. I am very happy with 64-bit Vista,
>> it works well. All my devices have drivers, and all my apps all work
>> fine. But, I'm a reasonably proficient user and willing to absorb some
>> pain to be on the bleeding edge. I also happen to have a 32-bit laptop
>> permanently within reach, for those few occassions when only 32-bits will
>> do (eg, running old 16-bit DOS and Win3.x apps).
>>
>> Hardware has *always* been somewhat in advance of software that's just
>> the nature of the beast. As a period of transition, today closely
>> resembles the move from 16-bits to 32-bits, circa 1992 (when 32 bit OS/2
>> 2.0 shipped) to 1996 (when Windows 95 overtook Windows 3.x in sales). The
>> first Intel 32-bit 80386 CPU was introduced in 1986, before even Windows
>> 2.03 shipped, let alone 32-bit Windows NT or 95. Lots of folks continued
>> to happily run 16-bit Windows 3.x on 386 CPUs for many years, until
>> Windows 95 made 32-bit Windows desktops near-universal, and 8086/80286
>> machines vanished from the shelves. Today, it's almost impossible to buy
>> a new computer with a 32-bit CPU they're nearly all 64-bit capable. It's
>> just a matter of time for 64 bit Windows (and Mac OS X, and Linux, and
>> Solaris) to become standard across the board. There will be a bumpy
>> transitition period for a couple of years, then we'll look back and laugh
>> about when we all ran 32-bit computers.
>>
>> Plenty of mainframe users today run 31-bit OS/390 on 64-bit zSeries
>> architecture, and fret about the transition to 64 bit z/OS. The problem
>> is not unique to the PC world!
>>
>> The main thing is: 64-bit isn't intrinsically "good", in and of itself.
>> It's only "good" to the extent that it makes the computer a useful tool.
>> If a user's situation is such they are better off running 32-bit Windows,
>> then that's absolutely what they should be using. Hell, there are plenty
>> of machines running DOS even today, tucked away in dark corners, quietly
>> running apps that have been useful since 1987. With the general move to
>> rich multimedia data handling on PCs and the enormous objects this
>> involves, plus cheap massive storage (1 Terbyte hard disks are now a
>> consumer item), and cheap memory (4GB RAM is becoming common) there will
>> be many opportunities for 64-bit applications to be truly useful in the
>> coming years.
>>
>> That's my 2 cents ...
>> --
>> Andrew McLaren
>> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>>
>
>