Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe Pasternak
  • Start date Start date
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
 
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
>
 
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?
>
 
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 :(
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
>
 
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................... :(
 
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 ****? Hey, Microsoft, are you reading this?
 
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 :-)
 
Re: Where is the software support for 64 bit Windows?


"Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23k%23lY5OTIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> ------------snip------------
>>> Here is a bit of perspective:
>> -------------snip-----------
>>
>> Booooring................... :(
>>
>
> Not to those of us that were there :-)

So you are the spokesperson?
 
Back
Top