At 02:06 PM 4/22/2015, Alastair Burr wrote:
Well, as far as I am concerned, nobody has ever made a case for moving
at some expense to the 64bit version. Looking at the comparison table I
still see nothing that would make a significant difference to my databases.
Moreover, my memory is not what it once was, but I seem to remember the
opposite case being made, that is, don't change unless you need to for
the longer names, etc.
Alastair,
The decision of using either 32 or 64 is purely the user's, based on your
own preference, monetary restrictions, and/or specific need to use R:BASE!
Obviously, the choice is yours.
http://www.rbase.com/rbg95/compare.php
Do you know how many R:BASE customers are taking advantage of using R:BASE
eXtreme 9.5 (64) with no limits and making R:BASE the front-end tool to
access and manage MS SQL and Oracle databases?
Am I right to assume that the 64bit version of R:Base is not yet adapted
to take advantage of a 64bit operating system? An operating system that
itself seems not to be a huge advantage over the 32bit version in any
case. Nevertheless, that capability might be worthwhile as my current
system came with 64bit Windows.
As all users of R:BASE eXtreme 9.5 (64) know, the current version is
built on 64 bit pointers and definitely fulfills all needs of our users,
including our BIG customers.
However, as we always take one step at a time, you just never know and
should never under-estimate the capabilities of R:BASE Development Team.
Compare the state of R:BASE today versus 17 years ago!
Very Best R:egards,
Razzak
www.rbase.com
www.facebook.com/rbase
--
32 years of continuous innovation!
17 Years of R:BASE Technologies, Inc. making R:BASE what it is today!
--
