5 replies to this topic

[James (Jim) Hillier]

Considering 64-bit hardware architecture has been in place for many years now, is it not about time software started to catch up with the trend???

What's the point of dual and quad core processors and all the other advancements in hardware if the software is not keeping pace?

Mozilla has just announced that the impending latest release of their popular Firefox browser is going to include full 64-bit support. The reason Mozilla say they haven't bothered in the past........because there has been no compatible version of Flash Player available.

Apparently Adobe are rectifying that situation and there is a 64-bit supported Flash Player on the way....so Mozilla are following suit.

Is it about time or what!!!!!

Sheesh!!!!!!

[marko]

Could agree more Jim, I've had 64-bit Windows 7 for some time now myself and the only reason I haven't included any details of 64-bit software in our listings was purely because software developers have been seriously slow to introduce it - over the past few months in particular I've noticed more and more developers quoting their apps support 64-bit and have been including those versions in the listing. After the upgrade, I'll be making this fact a little more obvious on each download, just will take a little more tweaking once Invision finally release the finished update

[PCRacer]

The only reason why most or even all software has not gone 64 bit, is because software development tools have no support for it.

I have been waiting for Borland Delphi to support 64 bit as far back as 2000. There is still no 64 bit support from them.

The best software developers can do is to be 64 bit compatible{instead of 64 bit native}, but that is pretty much up to Windows 64 bit to run 32 bit software.

[marko]

That's an interesting point I guess, here we are blaming developers for not keeping up to speed with the changing face of the hardware architecture and developers themselves are denied the tools they need to do just that!. Put's a different light on it

[jjj]

Another interesting topic which I had to go and google to understand a bit more of .( and justify why I am still on a 32bit machine)
From WIKI we went from 4 bits(1970) to 32 bits (1985) and 64 bits (1993) - ( mainstream availability)
So in around 20 years we went from-
4 bits = 16 (integers)
8 bits = 256
16 bits = 65,536
32 bits = 4,294,967,295 ( no idea how it ends in 5 - i'm only pasting from wikipedia)
64 bits = 18 446 744 073 709 551 616


Its now 20 years on and where are the 128 bit machines? (There are currently no mainstream general-purpose processors built to operate on 128-bit integers- again from wikipedia)
128 bits = RBN (really big number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx etc)


So , even though 32 bit is adequate for most of us , the fact that 64 bits is going to be around for a long time (possibly forever) is justification for its uptake - me thinks.
Thanks Jim for getting my brain cell moving and now I have some understanding.

[James (Jim) Hillier]

You are most welcome jjj.

One further point which should be kept in mind about 64-bit systems: a Windows 32-bit environment limits the utilisation of RAM to around 3.25GB maximum. A 64-bit system overcomes that limitation and will recognise and utilise much more RAM..........more RAM = greater flexibility and faster processing.