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

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.

"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

"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

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.

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
>>
>
>