hell I am still running 16 bit sw. Pretty soon though I will be assimilated. Older programs I still use but need to learn to live without pretty soon I think. Not sure I need them anymore even though I use them. Heck I think my envelope program is 8bit. not sure though.
FWIW Dinosaurs are alive and well. :-D fp At 08:49 AM 3/16/2011, Anthony Q. Martin Poked the stick with: >so many new systems now come with 64-bit windows that only people running >older hardware/software use 32-bit Windows anymore. At the least, MS should >have provided an on-par version of IE9 that runs on 64-bit systems. This is >dumb. I'm going to the new chrome unless FF gives me a good reason not to. I'm >not even going to consider IE9 now, and I was looking forward to playing with >it this weekend. > >On 3/16/2011 11:31 AM, FORC5 wrote: >>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 > >__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature >database 5959 (20110316) __________ > >The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > >http://www.eset.com > > -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Men, in general, are but overgrown children.
