Hi Les
I think to clarify, I found a Wikipedia entry of the timeline of ALL
known 64bit processors. As you go down the timeline, it starts at the
year 1961 for supercomputer 64bit processors system, and 64bit was only
ever available for mainframes and supercomputers.
But as you go down the
Yes under a laymans's terminology, and Linux devs seem to still use i586
and i686 in labelling pices of software, to explain the chip the
software code can run on. Intel dropped that chip naming convention
after the last i486, due to some claimed patent issues of other
competitors using
Just to cover your question of the i586 (Pentium P5) being a 32bit, yes
that is correct. To cover my statement of AMD being the first to market
with 64bit, AMD launched the first 64bit processor onto the market with
the Opteron in 2003 (PC and server based), Intel followed a year later
with
Andrew Brown wrote:
AMD has claim to the first launched 64bit processors and systems
Actually, I believe both the PowerPC and DEC Alpha were earlier. AMD had
the first that was compatible with the Intel x86 line.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
James Knott wrote:
Actually, I believe both the PowerPC and DEC Alpha were earlier.
I think the Intel Itanium also predated the AMD.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting
Hi James
Correct in the mainframe / large server arena of the two systems you
mentioned, but between AMD and Intel (desktop / local server) of which
the majority of users know, AMD was the first, and the Itanium was
factually only in 2004, as I stated with AMD in 2003. You can Google it
for
To add, the PowerPC 64bit chip, PowerPC 970, was never adopted by Apple
or other hardware designers using the PPC technology, and was only
sampled by IBM in 2003, so AMD was ahead of this chip as well in an
actual application and implementation of a 64bit chip. And to quote
directly from IBM's
On Sun, 2013-07-28 at 08:23 -0400, James Knott wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Actually, I believe both the PowerPC and DEC Alpha were earlier.
I think the Intel Itanium also predated the AMD.
That may depend on your definition of a processor. I had a math chip
for my 386 a long time ago that
Hi Rogman
I think I can help you with this. LO is currently a 32bit app set, that
you, like me, are running on a 64bit O/S. No issue with this as Windows
7 64bit know hows to work with both 32bit and 64bit apps, hence the two
Program Files (64bit default app store) and Program files (x86)
On 2013-07-26 3:15 AM, Andrew Brown andre...@icon.co.za wrote:
So with that bit of tech-ed above out of the way, what this means is it
looks like you have only installed the 64bit version of JRE (Java
Runtime Edition). LO Base cannot see or use it, hence it showing up in
the settings but Base
and
fewer wizards and extensions need it.
Regards from
Tom :)
From: Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 11:33
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] LO 4.1 upgrade from 4.0.4 - now does not find
Java
Tom Davies wrote:
My guess is that the default is 64bit or else other apps might need the 64bit
version. It's generally not a good idea to have more than 1 version of Java
although even 1 might well be more than you need now.
The big question is why are the Windows version of LibreOffice
On 2013-07-26 7:54 AM, James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com wrote:
Tom Davies wrote:
My guess is that the default is 64bit or else other apps might need
the 64bit version. It's generally not a good idea to have more than 1
version of Java although even 1 might well be more than you need now.
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:03:43 -0400, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
On 2013-07-26 7:54 AM, James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com wrote:
Tom Davies wrote:
My guess is that the default is 64bit or else other apps might need
the 64bit version. It's generally not a good idea to have
On 2013-07-26 8:18 AM, Jay Lozier jsloz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 08:03:43 -0400, Tanstaafl
tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-07-26 7:54 AM, James Knott james.kn...@rogers.com wrote:
Tom Davies wrote:
My guess is that the default is 64bit or else other apps might need
Hi Tanstaafl
Agreed for the current case of LO, but I have also found other issues
with now emerging 64 bit apps that rely on 64bit Java, hence my
suggestion. It was just to alleviate other issues going forward, even to
the release we see of a 64bit LO one day.
Regards
Andrew Brown
On
it. Fewer and
fewer wizards and extensions need it.
Regards from
Tom :)
From: Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Friday, 26 July 2013, 11:33
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] LO 4.1 upgrade from 4.0.4 - now does not find
Hi James
Umm!!! factually no, LO is still 32bit on Linux, it just works as
seamlessly as I explained in my previous email / post, on a Linux 64bit
system, as it does on a Windows 64bit system. I code in my spare time,
and I can tell you to change from 32bits of coding to 64bits of coding
is
Andrew Brown wrote:
Umm!!! factually no, LO is still 32bit on Linux
Then why is there an x86_64 version, when the 32 bit version should also
work well?
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems?
This is a structure from the devs in a file naming convention,
indicating its a 32bit app (x86_), that can be installed on a 64bit
operating system (_64), not necessarily a 64bit app. And in the case of
LO, it's definitely not yet a 64bit app. They still have to code 32bit
apps to be
Agreed, just look at what happens to Outlook, or Thunderbird when the
email store starts approaching 4GB on a 32bit system. This was an
ongoing support issue in my days of corporate IT support, in trying to
get users to purge their old emails and garbage and backup that which
they wanted and
Not really:
/opt/libreoffice4.0/program/soffice.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable,
x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.9, not stripped
HTH.
MR
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Andrew Brown andre...@icon.co.za wrote:
This is a structure from the devs
Ah!, but we have to have everything digital wroking in 64bit before
the year 2036 and 2038.
As we of us that went through and were involved in the raw IT support of
the Y2K issue will know, which is a pimple on the back of a blue whale,
compared to the coming ultimate Y2K. From 2036
Fine, but that only explains the executable as a 64bit under Linux
Standard Base (LSB part in the given reference for those wishing to
understand, meaning a standard function through all 'nixes). It's still
not the entire LO code base that is 64bit.
Regards
Andrew Brown
On 26/07/2013 07:54
Technically, the x86 indicates the architecture, the 64 indicates the
instruction set width. So x86_64 is a 64 bit chip, and the x86_32 is a
32 bit chip. Obviously, when apps (like LO) are marked as x86_64, they
mean that it is intended for a 64 bit OS running on a 64 bit chip, as
opposed to a 32
Good point. :-)
However, if I run find on the LO program directory, filter all the
files through 'file' and grep out everything with 64 in it, all that
remains is ASCII, shell scripts, data files and a few PE32 (and PE32+)
python executables that happen to be Windows .exe files that don't run
on
Not quite.
this is a finite and and absolute wall dominated by the laws of the
universe in science and math, and cannot be fixed at all, unlike the
original Y2K date issue
Well... not really. See, the original issue was that years were only
stored as two digits, instead of the complete four.
Paul wrote:
Technically, the x86 indicates the architecture, the 64 indicates the
instruction set width. So x86_64 is a 64 bit chip, and the x86_32 is a
32 bit chip.
I thought 32 bit CPUs were referred to as i586..
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
I have been using various versions of LO for some time now and have just
upgraded from V4.0.4 to V4.1.
All seems OK apart from base which does not find Java Runtime SE 7u25;
however it is shown OK in the advanced Options - LibreOffice - Advanced
setting as Oracle Corporation 1.7.0_25.
Is this a
29 matches
Mail list logo
