I do :-[ actually both fp At 08:22 AM 3/16/2011, Anthony Q. Martin Poked the stick with: >Who runs 32-bit windows anymore? > >Sent from my iPad > >On Mar 16, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Brian Weeden <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Good review of IE9 over at Arstechnica: >> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/reviews/2011/03/the-most-modern-browser-there-is-internet-explorer-9-reviewed.ars >> >> Once again, MS screws up it's own product strategy: >> >> "It's also a little disappointing that the 64-bit version is less polished >> than the 32-bit version. It can't be made the default browser, and it >> doesn't include the new, high-performance scripting engine. Microsoft has >> long argued that 64-bit browsing isn't necessary; most plug-ins are only >> 32-bit, and so, the argument goes, browsing must be a 32-bit activity. This >> is unfortunate. One, it leads to a certain chicken-and-egg problem: there's >> little incentive to develop 64-bit plug-ins since nobody uses a 64-bit >> browser due to the lack of plug-ins (though Adobe Flash 11 is likely to >> include first-class 64-bit support, resolving one of the big stumbling >> blocks). Making the 64-bit version first-class—the same features aand >> performance as the 32-bit version—and ensuring that, at least, Miccrosoft's >> own plug-ins (such as Silverlight) were supported would go a long way >> towards making 64-bit browsing viable. This is, after all, much the same >> route as the company took with Office." >> >> >> And there are good reasons why you would want to run the 64-bit version: >> >> "The reason that 64-bit is desirable is particularly because it offers the >> potential to strengthen certain anti-hacking mechanisms. Address Space >> Layout Randomization (ASLR) depends on the ability to change the in-memory >> layout of things like DLLs. In a 32-bit process there are only a limited >> number of random locations that can be chosen. 32-bit processes are also >> more vulnerable to anti-ASLR measures such as "heap spraying" (wherein a >> large proportion of the browser's memory is filled with malicious code to >> make it easier for an attacker to trick the browser into executing it). >> 64-bit is by no means a panacea, but it does strengthen these protection >> systems. For something that is as frequently attacked as a Web browser, this >> kind of defense in depth is desirable." >> >> Unfortunately, if you're running 64-bit Windows, you can't install the >> 32-bit version. You're stuck with the 64-bit version, which means no >> scripting performance improvement and far fewer plugins. Which means I'm >> sticking with Chrome. >> >> --- >> Brian > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature >database 5958 (20110316) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com
-- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Men, in general, are but overgrown children.
