"rasmasyean" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:e1103679fc7ea1e5bae014849c4389db@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> If this is any indication that 64-bit is the wave of the future and
> 32-bit will be "obsolete".
>
> "There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move
> from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
> We've been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit
> PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in
> recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a
> percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the
> U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than
> doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new
> Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were
> 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit
> Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current
> trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to
> supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and
> laptops."
> 'Windows Vista Team Blog : Windows Vista 64-bit Today'
> ([url]http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/07/30/windows-vista-64-bit-today.aspx[/url])
>
> Comments...?
> --
> rasmasyean[/color]

If enough software makers provide 64 bit apps, the trend may continue.
I haven't seen all that many that are true 64 bit apps, most will work with
64 bit, but don't take full advantage of it's capabilities.
I have no immediate plans to use 64 bit, my best estimate is 2-3 years to
mainstream enough 64 bit apps to make it worthwhile.

Yo, dude... What you quoted in no way addresses the 64-bit *applications*
issue. Until the applications are there that truly are 64-bit, the problems
with 64-bit Windows (and there are plenty) are not worth the risk for so
little return, and no matter how many cute tricks the programmers and
Microsoft pull to make what are essentially 32-bit apps run faster under
64-bit architecture, that is not at all the same as having true 64-bit
applications.

Not only that, but SuperFetch would drive the RAM worry warts, the ones who
insist that there must be as much free memory as possible, absolutely
bonkers, <g>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
[url]http://grystmill.com[/url]

"rasmasyean" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:2a91e45ba70dbeffebeb7d21f6de1298@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> Not Even Me;822139 Wrote:[color=green]
>> If enough software makers provide 64 bit apps, the trend may continue.
>> I haven't seen all that many that are true 64 bit apps, most will work
>> with
>> 64 bit, but don't take full advantage of it's capabilities.
>> I have no immediate plans to use 64 bit, my best estimate is 2-3 years
>> to
>> mainstream enough 64 bit apps to make it worthwhile.[/color]
>
> Yo dude, you didn't even read that article. :huh:
>
> "What started out as a gradual (some would say "glacial") movement
> toward 64-bit PCs, driven primarily by technology enthusiasts, seems to
> have turned into a swift transition, likely fueled by the falling cost
> of memory and consumers' desire to get the most out of their PCs."
>
> " 'PC Accelerators'
> ([url]http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/accelerator.mspx[/url]) built
> into Windows Vista, such as *Windows SuperFetch*, improve performance by
> keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is
> closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its
> job more efficiently. "
>
>
> --
> rasmasyean[/color]

Yo, dude... What you quoted in no way addresses the 64-bit *applications*
issue. Until the applications are there that truly are 64-bit, the problems
with 64-bit Windows (and there are plenty) are not worth the risk for so
little return, and no matter how many cute tricks the programmers and
Microsoft pull to make what are essentially 32-bit apps run faster under
64-bit architecture, that is not at all the same as having true 64-bit
applications.

Not only that, but SuperFetch would drive the RAM worry warts, the ones who
insist that there must be as much free memory as possible, absolutely
bonkers, <g>.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
[url]http://grystmill.com[/url]

"rasmasyean" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:2a91e45ba70dbeffebeb7d21f6de1298@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> Not Even Me;822139 Wrote:[color=green]
>> If enough software makers provide 64 bit apps, the trend may continue.
>> I haven't seen all that many that are true 64 bit apps, most will work
>> with
>> 64 bit, but don't take full advantage of it's capabilities.
>> I have no immediate plans to use 64 bit, my best estimate is 2-3 years
>> to
>> mainstream enough 64 bit apps to make it worthwhile.[/color]
>
> Yo dude, you didn't even read that article. :huh:
>
> "What started out as a gradual (some would say "glacial") movement
> toward 64-bit PCs, driven primarily by technology enthusiasts, seems to
> have turned into a swift transition, likely fueled by the falling cost
> of memory and consumers' desire to get the most out of their PCs."
>
> " 'PC Accelerators'
> ([url]http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/accelerator.mspx[/url]) built
> into Windows Vista, such as *Windows SuperFetch*, improve performance by
> keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is
> closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its
> job more efficiently. "
>
>
> --
> rasmasyean[/color]

What, you can't have the cache and all that with true 64-bit apps? You have
to choose between one or the other? My 32-bit Windows on this Core2Duo
machine is plenty fast as it is. I've don't generally have to wait more than
a heartbeat for apps to open, so I don't see any advantage in storing them
in RAM to make them open more quickly.

I know all that about the RAM, wasted space, etc. I guess my <g> (grin) at
the end of the paragraph didn't make it clear enough that I consider those
"free-RAM believers to be nuts.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
[url]http://grystmill.com[/url]

"rasmasyean" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:512efd0c9790dc508f6a41af1dc77ed0@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> Gary S. Terhune;822848 Wrote:[color=green]
>> Yo, dude... What you quoted in no way addresses the 64-bit
>> *applications*
>> issue. Until the applications are there that truly are 64-bit, the
>> problems
>> with 64-bit Windows (and there are plenty) are not worth the risk for
>> so
>> little return, and no matter how many cute tricks the programmers and
>> Microsoft pull to make what are essentially 32-bit apps run faster
>> under
>> 64-bit architecture, that is not at all the same as having true 64-bit
>> applications.
>>
>> Not only that, but SuperFetch would drive the RAM worry warts, the ones
>> who
>> insist that there must be as much free memory as possible, absolutely
>> bonkers, <g>.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> 'Welcome to the GrystMill!' ([url]http://grystmill.com[/url])
>>[/color]
>
> That's not exactly how it works. Having a large disk cache makes
> overall performance faster since it doesn't have to access the HD as
> much since a HD is a lot slower than RAM.
>
> And what you are talking about regarding 64-bit application performance
> only applies to things that involve a lot of math calculations. Many of
> these "special" users already use 64-bit XP. In reality, the "average
> user" would reap more benefit from cache (even as it uses all "free"
> RAM) than to run true 64-bit applications. The future 64-bit apps is
> just icing on the cake.
>
> See most free RAM is wasted, so Vista salvages that wasted RAM
> intelligently to make the computer faster. It's not just the CPU and
> FLOPS or whatever that affects performance.
>
> At least that's what that article is indicating as the reason for
> grater adoption of 64-bit Vista (vs. 32-bit Vista).
>
>
> --
> rasmasyean[/color]

What, you can't have the cache and all that with true 64-bit apps? You have
to choose between one or the other? My 32-bit Windows on this Core2Duo
machine is plenty fast as it is. I've don't generally have to wait more than
a heartbeat for apps to open, so I don't see any advantage in storing them
in RAM to make them open more quickly.

I know all that about the RAM, wasted space, etc. I guess my <g> (grin) at
the end of the paragraph didn't make it clear enough that I consider those
"free-RAM believers to be nuts.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
[url]http://grystmill.com[/url]

"rasmasyean" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:512efd0c9790dc508f6a41af1dc77ed0@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> Gary S. Terhune;822848 Wrote:[color=green]
>> Yo, dude... What you quoted in no way addresses the 64-bit
>> *applications*
>> issue. Until the applications are there that truly are 64-bit, the
>> problems
>> with 64-bit Windows (and there are plenty) are not worth the risk for
>> so
>> little return, and no matter how many cute tricks the programmers and
>> Microsoft pull to make what are essentially 32-bit apps run faster
>> under
>> 64-bit architecture, that is not at all the same as having true 64-bit
>> applications.
>>
>> Not only that, but SuperFetch would drive the RAM worry warts, the ones
>> who
>> insist that there must be as much free memory as possible, absolutely
>> bonkers, <g>.
>>
>> --
>> Gary S. Terhune
>> MS-MVP Shell/User
>> 'Welcome to the GrystMill!' ([url]http://grystmill.com[/url])
>>[/color]
>
> That's not exactly how it works. Having a large disk cache makes
> overall performance faster since it doesn't have to access the HD as
> much since a HD is a lot slower than RAM.
>
> And what you are talking about regarding 64-bit application performance
> only applies to things that involve a lot of math calculations. Many of
> these "special" users already use 64-bit XP. In reality, the "average
> user" would reap more benefit from cache (even as it uses all "free"
> RAM) than to run true 64-bit applications. The future 64-bit apps is
> just icing on the cake.
>
> See most free RAM is wasted, so Vista salvages that wasted RAM
> intelligently to make the computer faster. It's not just the CPU and
> FLOPS or whatever that affects performance.
>
> At least that's what that article is indicating as the reason for
> grater adoption of 64-bit Vista (vs. 32-bit Vista).
>
>
> --
> rasmasyean[/color]

I read it, but I still don't see the 'glacial shift'.
Having a 64 bit OS may allow a few programs to run faster, but for most
applications it's no help.
Eventually it will be needed and functional, but that time has not arrived
yet.

"rasmasyean" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:2a91e45ba70dbeffebeb7d21f6de1298@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> Not Even Me;822139 Wrote:[color=green]
>> If enough software makers provide 64 bit apps, the trend may continue.
>> I haven't seen all that many that are true 64 bit apps, most will work
>> with
>> 64 bit, but don't take full advantage of it's capabilities.
>> I have no immediate plans to use 64 bit, my best estimate is 2-3 years
>> to
>> mainstream enough 64 bit apps to make it worthwhile.[/color]
>
> Yo dude, you didn't even read that article. :huh:
>
> "What started out as a gradual (some would say "glacial") movement
> toward 64-bit PCs, driven primarily by technology enthusiasts, seems to
> have turned into a swift transition, likely fueled by the falling cost
> of memory and consumers' desire to get the most out of their PCs."
>
> " 'PC Accelerators'
> ([url]http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/accelerator.mspx[/url]) built
> into Windows Vista, such as *Windows SuperFetch*, improve performance by
> keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is
> closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its
> job more efficiently. "
>
>
> --
> rasmasyean[/color]