Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
It is an IntelliKeys USB keyboard. (http://store.cambiumlearning.com/ProgramPage.aspx?parentId=074003405functionID=00908site=itc) It was originally designed school aged students with disabilities, but it also is great for adults who have trouble using a standard keyboard. I have been using them with adults with disabilities for over 10 years. Steve Mark A. Metz wrote: What make/model of keyboard? Jeff Wright wrote: A client of mine got the 64-bit version of Windows Vista on his new computer and was no longer able to use his adaptive Keyboard (which by itself costs $395). I went to the website today and it still does not have 64-bit version. You'd think for a $400 peripheral, he would have made that simple check at the mfr's web site before committing to 64-bit. I agree, he shouldn't have to, but that's the reality right now. Can any of our developers enlighten us as to how hard it is to port a driver from 32-bit to 64-bit, all other things being equal? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
You do not know of any mouse like this do you? A friend of mine with CP uses an Easy Ball (An old product) from MS and it only has one mouse button instead of two, plus I think it is serial. Stewart At 01:12 PM 8/29/2009, you wrote: It is an IntelliKeys USB keyboard. (http://store.cambiumlearning.com/ProgramPage.aspx?parentId=074003405functionID=00908site=itc) It was originally designed school aged students with disabilities, but it also is great for adults who have trouble using a standard keyboard. I have been using them with adults with disabilities for over 10 years. Steve Mark A. Metz wrote: What make/model of keyboard? Jeff Wright wrote: A client of mine got the 64-bit version of Windows Vista on his new computer and was no longer able to use his adaptive Keyboard (which by itself costs $395). I went to the website today and it still does not have 64-bit version. You'd think for a $400 peripheral, he would have made that simple check at the mfr's web site before committing to 64-bit. I agree, he shouldn't have to, but that's the reality right now. Can any of our developers enlighten us as to how hard it is to port a driver from 32-bit to 64-bit, all other things being equal? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Stewart, My preference has been the Kensington Expert Mouse trackball. It has 4 buttons that be programmed. I think it is great for people with CP. The ball is about the size of a cue ball. You can set them for different or the same functions. I like setting one for click, one for double click and one for drag, but you can set them for a number of functions or for no function if you so choose. I hope this helps. Steve Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: You do not know of any mouse like this do you? A friend of mine with CP uses an Easy Ball (An old product) from MS and it only has one mouse button instead of two, plus I think it is serial. Stewart At 01:12 PM 8/29/2009, you wrote: It is an IntelliKeys USB keyboard. (http://store.cambiumlearning.com/ProgramPage.aspx?parentId=074003405functionID=00908site=itc) It was originally designed school aged students with disabilities, but it also is great for adults who have trouble using a standard keyboard. I have been using them with adults with disabilities for over 10 years. Steve * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
A client of mine got the 64-bit version of Windows Vista on his new computer and was no longer able to use his adaptive Keyboard (which by itself costs $395). I went to the website today and it still does not have 64-bit version. Steve TPiwowar wrote: On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Jeff Wright wrote: And Windows has been 64-bit for several years now. The problem has been in driver support and app compatibility, no surprise there. Precisely. Apple knows that some drivers won't work right with the 64 kernel, but it doesn't know if you have such drivers. It suspects that you probably do so the default is 32 bit. You can try 64 by starting up with the 6 and 4 keys depressed and from then on it will run with the 64 kernel. If you run into trouble you restart with 3 and 2 depressed and that puts you back to a 32 kernel. A very elegant solution to a problem that gave Vista users conniptions. What I don't understand is why WFBs have such a hard time understanding something so simple. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
A client of mine got the 64-bit version of Windows Vista on his new computer and was no longer able to use his adaptive Keyboard (which by itself costs $395). I went to the website today and it still does not have 64-bit version. You'd think for a $400 peripheral, he would have made that simple check at the mfr's web site before committing to 64-bit. I agree, he shouldn't have to, but that's the reality right now. Can any of our developers enlighten us as to how hard it is to port a driver from 32-bit to 64-bit, all other things being equal? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
What make/model of keyboard? Jeff Wright wrote: A client of mine got the 64-bit version of Windows Vista on his new computer and was no longer able to use his adaptive Keyboard (which by itself costs $395). I went to the website today and it still does not have 64-bit version. You'd think for a $400 peripheral, he would have made that simple check at the mfr's web site before committing to 64-bit. I agree, he shouldn't have to, but that's the reality right now. Can any of our developers enlighten us as to how hard it is to port a driver from 32-bit to 64-bit, all other things being equal? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Can any of our developers enlighten us as to how hard it is to port a driver from 32-bit to 64-bit, all other things being equal? It depends completely on how the original code was written. It can be pretty easy, or it can be quite difficult. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:59 AM, Jeff Wright wrote: Can any of our developers enlighten us as to how hard it is to port a driver from 32-bit to 64-bit, all other things being equal? Apple is making a big push on drivers and beefing up its software update process to include more drivers. In SL when you add a new peripheral, software update will go out and look for drivers. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Apple is making a big push on drivers and beefing up its software update process to include more drivers. In SL when you add a new peripheral, software update will go out and look for drivers. I guess I don't have to point out that Windows has been doing this since *at least* 2002 with the release of XP. It may have done it with 2000, but I don't recall. Windows 7 is pretty well chock-full o' drivers from what I can tell. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Now you are being silly just to prove a point. Most people do not dual boot and may who try find themselves in a world of pain. As if you have a point. Who cares if most people don't? Most people don't use Macs, but that doesn't stop you from using them. You can dual boot between 32 and 64 bit OSes and people I know do already. Fortunately the Windows ecosystem is much more 64-bit friendly today than it was only a year ago. What pain? It's no different from Boot Camp that you so loudly hooted about years ago. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Do you understand binary numbers, Tony? A 32-bit binary number cannot go beyond 4,294,967,296 (4 gigabytes, 4*1024*1024*1024), so a 32-bit system cannot address more than 4 GB. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though. Unless Mac OS also has such licensing issues, this shouldn't be as big an advantage. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS)mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote: A large advantage of 64-bit is getting past the 4B address limit. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
I should have, for those who do not know binary numbers, shown how to see this. Binary numbers are similar to base-10 numbers, in that each digit to the left is 2-times as large as the digit to the right. In base-10, each digit to the left is ten-times as large, for example 10 vs. 100. In binary numbers all digits are a one or a zero, so two would be 10. The easiest way to see the 4 GB limit of a 32-bit binary number is to use a spread sheet. In the first cell, type a 1 (one). In the next 31 cells enter 2*previous cell address. Then sum the 32 cells and you can see the binary equivalent of four gigabytes. Te sum represents a binary number consisting of 32 ones, its maximum value. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- Do you understand binary numbers, Tony? A 32-bit binary number cannot go beyond 4,294,967,296 (4 gigabytes, 4*1024*1024*1024), so a 32-bit system cannot address more than 4 GB. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Mark is correct. 4 GB is a physical limitation of 32-bit kernels, which is the best reason to go 64-bit: no real limitation to the amount of RAM you can use, other than what the motherboard will support. However, I can recall when 32-bit came around in the 90's, Wow! 4 GB of RAM! We'll never see that in our lifetime. Amiga was 32-bit very early, correct? PAE is a workaround for datacenter systems. From Tony's wiki link: x86 processor hardware architecture is augmented with additional address lines used to select the additional memory, so physical address size is increased from 32 bits to 36 bits. This, theoretically, increases maximum physical memory size from 4 GB to 64 GB. The 32-bit size of the virtual address is not changed, so regular application software continues to use instructions with 32-bit addresses and (in a flat memory model) is limited to 4 gigabytes of virtual address space. The operating system uses page tables to map this 4 GB address space into the 64 GB of virtual memory. The mapping is typically applied differently for each process. In this way, the extra memory is useful even though no single regular application can access it all simultaneously. For example, in Windows, x86, 32-bit-versions, the maximum 4GB of virtual address space (VAS) is separated into two sections of 2GB: 2GB is allocated to kernel processing and the other 2GB is allocated to user. Regardless of how much physical RAM a Windows, x86, 32-bit-version computing system has, the VAS is still limited to 4GB. However, this is not true for Windows, x64-versions - which incidentally have up to 16TB of VAS. -Original Message- Do you understand binary numbers, Tony? A 32-bit binary number cannot go beyond 4,294,967,296 (4 gigabytes, 4*1024*1024*1024), so a 32-bit system cannot address more than 4 GB. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Vista's problem wasn't 64 or 32bit related it was that drivers were not written for vista until it had been out nearly a year. You can blame this on MS only in that they may have not given the code to software writers soon enough. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:06 PM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Jeff Wright wrote: And Windows has been 64-bit for several years now. The problem has been in driver support and app compatibility, no surprise there. Precisely. Apple knows that some drivers won't work right with the 64 kernel, but it doesn't know if you have such drivers. It suspects that you probably do so the default is 32 bit. You can try 64 by starting up with the 6 and 4 keys depressed and from then on it will run with the 64 kernel. If you run into trouble you restart with 3 and 2 depressed and that puts you back to a 32 kernel. A very elegant solution to a problem that gave Vista users conniptions. What I don't understand is why WFBs have such a hard time understanding something so simple. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
My understanding of the Mess Vista got introduced to was yes it was MS not releasing code and not allowing coders access to needed knowledge. I remember a few of the antivirus folks complaining quite publicly about this. Seems that they did a lot more work with 7. Stewart At 07:57 AM 8/27/2009, you wrote: Vista's problem wasn't 64 or 32bit related it was that drivers were not written for vista until it had been out nearly a year. You can blame this on MS only in that they may have not given the code to software writers soon enough. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
My understanding of the Mess Vista got introduced to was yes it was MS not releasing code and not allowing coders access to needed knowledge. I remember a few of the antivirus folks complaining quite publicly about this. Seems that they did a lot more work with 7. The anti-virus folks, most notably Symantec, complained because MS changed the kernel security and wouldn't let them hook in that level. MS eventually caved, which was a mistake. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Vista's problem wasn't 64 or 32bit related it was that drivers were not written for vista until it had been out nearly a year. You can blame this on MS only in that they may have not given the code to software writers soon enough. I don't even blame MS for that. The Vista beta's were out over a year before Vista was released; there was tons of lead time even for the 32-bit drivers. This is just another instance of the industry sitting on their hands. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Thanks for the quick lesson. But it has nothing to do with what I said. You probably missed the link Vicky gave which explains it better than I can. Tom never actually told us if previous versions of 32 bit Mac OS have been able to use more than 4gb ram, instead going off on a rant. That 32-bit editions of Windows Vista are limited to 4GB is not because of any physical or technical constraint on 32-bit operating systems. The 32-bit editions of Windows Vista all contain code for using physical memory above 4GB. Microsoft just doesn’t license you to use that code. On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS)mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote: Do you understand binary numbers, Tony? A 32-bit binary number cannot go beyond 4,294,967,296 (4 gigabytes, 4*1024*1024*1024), so a 32-bit system cannot address more than 4 GB. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Tony, you are confusing schemes to virtually address modestly more than the 32-bit limit by stretching it to a number some 4-16 times the actual limit for a 32-bit binary number. Apple never played those virtual address games with 32-bit operating systems (starting with MAC OS 7 or 7.1 in about 1991). A 32-bit binary number can not go beyond about 4.3 billion addresses. The limit for a 64-bit binary number is 18,446,744,073,709,600,000, or about 4.3 billion times more than a 32-bit number. So with your 64-bit OS, you just need to find hardware that can accommodate 18 Exabyte's of memory. (Exabyte is a gigabyte squared.) Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- Thanks for the quick lesson. But it has nothing to do with what I said. You probably missed the link Vicky gave which explains it better than I can. Tom never actually told us if previous versions of 32 bit Mac OS have been able to use more than 4gb ram, instead going off on a rant. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
No, not 'we', I was just talking to you. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:44 PM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:42 PM, mike wrote: MS has not because no that they are running 64bit or 32bit. Got it. Official M$ line is that 64-bit is useless, something that no one would notice. You think we are stupid? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
The OS loads either the 32 or 64-bit kernel at startup. Default is 32. At some point the default will be 64. This doesn't paint customers into a corner. Yes very nice -- typical Apple engineering. No matter how you slice and dice it, the fact remains that Vista and Win7 are fully 64-bit out of the box, including the kernel. I don't have any problem with Macs, but I do love how you manage to claim that defaulting to the 32-bit version of a critical component is somehow a big advantage over 64-bit Windows, and a sign of superior engineering. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Not sure why you're flailing on this. Mac OS 10.6, Snow Leopard, can be set to load 64-bit, every time, if desired, or left to the default, to load the 32-bit kernel. Windows users must install one or the other. This is not a huge difference. Why split hairs? I like Apple's approach; if I need to use 32-bit kernel to work with older software, I can, and can switch when 32-bit is no longer needed. M$ does provide 32-bit or 64-bit. This is at installation, but I don't slam them for that. Why the nit-picking? Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- No matter how you slice and dice it, the fact remains that Vista and Win7 are fully 64-bit out of the box, including the kernel. I don't have any problem with Macs, but I do love how you manage to claim that defaulting to the 32-bit version of a critical component is somehow a big advantage over 64-bit Windows, and a sign of superior engineering. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Mark, where exactly did I slam $now Leopard? I don't have any problem with either approach. I just think it's amusing that TP manages to find that defaulting to a 32-bit kernel in a 64-bit OS is superior engineering. If MS did that, he'd be dripping with contempt and sarcasm, and saying Why am I not surprised?, and we all know it. -Original Message- From: Computer Guys Discussion List [mailto:computerguy...@listserv.aol.com] On Behalf Of Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS) Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 7:31 AM To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit Not sure why you're flailing on this. Mac OS 10.6, Snow Leopard, can be set to load 64-bit, every time, if desired, or left to the default, to load the 32-bit kernel. Windows users must install one or the other. This is not a huge difference. Why split hairs? I like Apple's approach; if I need to use 32-bit kernel to work with older software, I can, and can switch when 32-bit is no longer needed. M$ does provide 32-bit or 64-bit. This is at installation, but I don't slam them for that. Why the nit-picking? Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- No matter how you slice and dice it, the fact remains that Vista and Win7 are fully 64-bit out of the box, including the kernel. I don't have any problem with Macs, but I do love how you manage to claim that defaulting to the 32-bit version of a critical component is somehow a big advantage over 64-bit Windows, and a sign of superior engineering. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Okay, Chris, I guess I am getting miffed at the cross-jabs on this one. Seems to be lame attempts at petty one-ups. I think his small point was OS X does not need to be re-installed to go between 32- and 64-bit. A small thing, but a better design. M$ often charges for these differences. I'm not really looking for a response, but do if this offends; it isn't meant to. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- Mark, where exactly did I slam $now Leopard? I don't have any problem with either approach. I just think it's amusing that TP manages to find that defaulting to a 32-bit kernel in a 64-bit OS is superior engineering. If MS did that, he'd be dripping with contempt and sarcasm, and saying Why am I not surprised?, and we all know it. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
As I said before 99% of windows or mac users don't know and/or don't care about 32 vs 64 bit. I'd wager most mac users if confronted with the choice of the two won't know which to choose or why to choose which one. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:30 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS) mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote: Not sure why you're flailing on this. Mac OS 10.6, Snow Leopard, can be set to load 64-bit, every time, if desired, or left to the default, to load the 32-bit kernel. Windows users must install one or the other. This is not a huge difference. Why split hairs? I like Apple's approach; if I need to use 32-bit kernel to work with older software, I can, and can switch when 32-bit is no longer needed. M$ does provide 32-bit or 64-bit. This is at installation, but I don't slam them for that. Why the nit-picking? Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- No matter how you slice and dice it, the fact remains that Vista and Win7 are fully 64-bit out of the box, including the kernel. I don't have any problem with Macs, but I do love how you manage to claim that defaulting to the 32-bit version of a critical component is somehow a big advantage over 64-bit Windows, and a sign of superior engineering. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Ah, but most of us on this list know the issues (or know who to ask). This is/was a discussion of a design issue, not the merits of 32-bit vs. 64-bit. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- As I said before 99% of windows or mac users don't know and/or don't care about 32 vs 64 bit. I'd wager most mac users if confronted with the choice of the two won't know which to choose or why to choose which one. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
But the mac design issue leads into a normal user having to choose 32 or 64 unless I read wrong? On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS) mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote: Ah, but most of us on this list know the issues (or know who to ask). This is/was a discussion of a design issue, not the merits of 32-bit vs. 64-bit. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- As I said before 99% of windows or mac users don't know and/or don't care about 32 vs 64 bit. I'd wager most mac users if confronted with the choice of the two won't know which to choose or why to choose which one. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Mike, you already asserted that the average user would not know which to pick or how to tell which was running, so how is this now an issue for normal users? Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- But the mac design issue leads into a normal user having to choose 32 or 64 unless I read wrong? On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS) mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote: Ah, but most of us on this list know the issues (or know who to ask). This is/was a discussion of a design issue, not the merits of 32-bit vs. 64-bit. Thank you, Mark Snyder -Original Message- As I said before 99% of windows or mac users don't know and/or don't care about 32 vs 64 bit. I'd wager most mac users if confronted with the choice of the two won't know which to choose or why to choose which one. ** *** ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** ** *** * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
I'm not flailing here. I just don't understand and I'm not afraid to ask apparently ignorant questions. Keep in mind that I'm an experienced computer user, not a tech., so I don't quite understand the whole kernel level aspects of the discussed feature set. I have a Vista 64 machine that runs Photoshop CS4 at 64 bit. It runs Photoshop 7 at 32 bit. It even runs older apps at 16 bit, I think. So even though the OS is 64 bit, and I realize that means I can run 64 bit apps., it doesn't limit my running whatever I want, right? And I don't have to reboot to a 32 bit environment to do it. Is the discussion revolving around a supposed engineering advantage of being able to boot to a 32 bit environment to run older apps.? Wouldn't it be better to boot at 64 bit and have the OS use 32 bit 'natively' when it needs to without having to restart? This appears to be what Vista 64 is doing. Feel free to point out my ignorance. I'm just trying to understand. And it may help to clarify the discussion for all. Mark Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS) wrote: Ah, but most of us on this list know the issues (or know who to ask). This is/was a discussion of a design issue, not the merits of 32-bit vs. 64-bit. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
The most common issue is with drivers and other system functions. Most updating or replacing an operating system (not a server) just need to find out if their applications run okay in the new OS. For most, this is a handful of commercial applications, so is a short process. Those with specialized or custom code may suffer. A large advantage of 64-bit is getting past the 4B address limit. Thank you, Mark Snyder - not drowning, waving -Original Message- I'm not flailing here. I just don't understand and I'm not afraid to ask apparently ignorant questions. Keep in mind that I'm an experienced computer user, not a tech., so I don't quite understand the whole kernel level aspects of the discussed feature set. I have a Vista 64 machine that runs Photoshop CS4 at 64 bit. It runs Photoshop 7 at 32 bit. It even runs older apps at 16 bit, I think. So even though the OS is 64 bit, and I realize that means I can run 64 bit apps., it doesn't limit my running whatever I want, right? And I don't have to reboot to a 32 bit environment to do it. Is the discussion revolving around a supposed engineering advantage of being able to boot to a 32 bit environment to run older apps.? Wouldn't it be better to boot at 64 bit and have the OS use 32 bit 'natively' when it needs to without having to restart? This appears to be what Vista 64 is doing. Feel free to point out my ignorance. I'm just trying to understand. And it may help to clarify the discussion for all. Mark * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though. Unless Mac OS also has such licensing issues, this shouldn't be as big an advantage. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS)mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote: A large advantage of 64-bit is getting past the 4B address limit. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Explain what you mean by a licensing issue? Stewart At 04:18 PM 8/26/2009, you wrote: The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though. Unless Mac OS also has such licensing issues, this shouldn't be as big an advantage. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
The 32 bit Windows versions have always limited people to addressing 4gb of memory. Not so with e.g. 32 bit Windows Server 2008, which I think comes with as much as like 80gb ram. In fact, I asked about this on the list a while back. How can I ensure that PAE is turned on so I know my WinXP is using all 6gb of my ram. It was only much later I discovered the consumer versions of Windows don't include PAE, and so are limited to 4gb ram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshallpopoz...@earthlink.net wrote: Explain what you mean by a licensing issue? Stewart At 04:18 PM 8/26/2009, you wrote: The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though. Unless Mac OS also has such licensing issues, this shouldn't be as big an advantage. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Tony B wrote: The 4gb memory limit is just a Windows licensing issue though. Unless Mac OS also has such licensing issues, this shouldn't be as big an advantage. Right. The 32-bits specified is the size of a virtual memory address. Physical memory can actually be larger, though a particular process (program) would still be limited to the 4GB address space. Linux (and some server versions of Windows, not sure about OS X) can use PAE addressing to use more than 4GB, even in 32-bit mode. I just read an article on this yesterday: http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS)mark.sny...@ngc.com wrote: A large advantage of 64-bit is getting past the 4B address limit. -- Vicky Staubly http://www.steeds.com/vicky/vi...@steeds.com * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Tony B wrote: In fact, I asked about this on the list a while back. How can I ensure that PAE is turned on so I know my WinXP is using all 6gb of my ram. It was only much later I discovered the consumer versions of Windows don't include PAE, and so are limited to 4gb ram. Are you saying memory access is crippled unless one buys a higher- priced version? Why am I not surprised? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:49 AM, Jeff Wright wrote: And Windows has been 64-bit for several years now. The problem has been in driver support and app compatibility, no surprise there. Precisely. Apple knows that some drivers won't work right with the 64 kernel, but it doesn't know if you have such drivers. It suspects that you probably do so the default is 32 bit. You can try 64 by starting up with the 6 and 4 keys depressed and from then on it will run with the 64 kernel. If you run into trouble you restart with 3 and 2 depressed and that puts you back to a 32 kernel. A very elegant solution to a problem that gave Vista users conniptions. What I don't understand is why WFBs have such a hard time understanding something so simple. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 26, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Mark A. Metz wrote: I have a Vista 64 machine that runs Photoshop CS4 at 64 bit. It runs Photoshop 7 at 32 bit. It even runs older apps at 16 bit, I think. So even though the OS is 64 bit, and I realize that means I can run 64 bit apps., it doesn't limit my running whatever I want, right? And I don't have to reboot to a 32 bit environment to do it. That's running in application space. A very different environment than the kernel. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Snyder, Mark - IdM (IS) wrote: Not sure why you're flailing on this. Mac OS 10.6, Snow Leopard, can be set to load 64-bit, every time, if desired, or left to the default, to load the 32-bit kernel. Windows users must install one or the other. This is not a huge difference. Why split hairs? Sure is a huge difference. Reinstalling Windows is not quick and will probably mess up many installed apps. Not something that is done lightly. Definitely not something you would want to switch back and forth. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Sure is a huge difference. Reinstalling Windows is not quick and will probably mess up many installed apps. Not something that is done lightly. Definitely not something you would want to switch back and forth. You can dual boot with 32-bit and 64-bit versions. I know people who do it now. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:41 PM, Jeff Wright wrote: You can dual boot with 32-bit and 64-bit versions. I know people who do it now. Now you are being silly just to prove a point. Most people do not dual boot and may who try find themselves in a world of pain. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Not too far I already have pre-orders in for a few copies. Stewart At 09:58 AM 8/25/2009, you wrote: This explains a lot. Some things run in 32 bit, some in 64 bit. It all depends. http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html There is a lot of confusion about the fact that Snow Leopard starts by default with a 32-bit kernel even though nearly everything else is 64-bit (according to Apple all system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit). Snow Leopard is 64-bit for all users with a 64-bit CPU. The applications are, the memory space is. The ONLY THING that doesn't load into 64-bit - ON PURPOSE - is the kernel! The problem is compatibility with third-party drivers. Some programs are so deeply intertwined with the OS that they reach deeply into its bowels and modify its core, the kernel - these drivers are called kernel extensions (or kext). BTW, the new Mac OS ships this Friday. M$'s Vista replacement is still way out there in the future. Rev. Stewart A. Marshall mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org Ozark, AL SL 82 * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Was someone asking? On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:58 AM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: This explains a lot. Some things run in 32 bit, some in 64 bit. It all depends. http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html There is a lot of confusion about the fact that Snow Leopard starts by default with a 32-bit kernel even though nearly everything else is 64-bit (according to Apple all system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit). Snow Leopard is 64-bit for all users with a 64-bit CPU. The applications are, the memory space is. The ONLY THING that doesn't load into 64-bit - ON PURPOSE - is the kernel! The problem is compatibility with third-party drivers. Some programs are so deeply intertwined with the OS that they reach deeply into its bowels and modify its core, the kernel - these drivers are called kernel extensions (or kext). BTW, the new Mac OS ships this Friday. M$'s Vista replacement is still way out there in the future. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
I was wondering why some authors have already claimed the new Mac OS was going to have better compatibility with old 32 bit apps than Win7. Now I see - basically because the OS is still 32 bit itself. I'm not at all sure what the comment about Win7 being way in the future means. Many people - myself included - are running it now, and it will be released to the public in less than two months. Interesting that MS has decided to code separate 64 and 32 bit versions, rather than going the hybrid approach like Apple. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Tony B wrote: Now I see - basically because the OS is still 32 bit itself. You don't see all that well (why am I not surprised?). OS X.6 is set to run a 32-bit kernel as the default. It can be set to run a 64-bit kernel or you can just press the 6 and 4 keys during startup. Reasons why have already been described. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
You are kicking me off the list for asking? Nice. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:27 AM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:34 AM, mike wrote: Was someone asking? Then butt out. You are not invited to this conversation. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:34 AM, mike wrote: Was someone asking? Then butt out. You are not invited to this conversation. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote: Not too far I already have pre-orders in for a few copies. Yes I saw, M$ wanted to be paid 3 months ahead on the promise of delivering an operating system and the faithful got their credit cards out. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:45 PM, mike wrote: You are kicking me off the list for asking? Nice. Cue the violins. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Gimme the little one. Plaintive and sorrowful. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:34 AM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:45 PM, mike wrote: You are kicking me off the list for asking? Nice. Cue the violins. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Then why the F didn't you just say that without expecting us to read that long article? So now you're saying the only difference is the new Mac OS will combine both 64 and 32 bit versions in the same package, and the installer must choose 64 bit manually. Win7 will come in two different binaries, and the installer must use the correct one. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:25 PM, TPiwowart...@tjpa.com wrote: OS X.6 is set to run a 32-bit kernel as the default. It can be set to run a 64-bit kernel or you can just press the 6 and 4 keys during startup. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Tony B wrote: So now you're saying the only difference is the new Mac OS will combine both 64 and 32 bit versions in the same package, and the installer must choose 64 bit manually. Win7 will come in two different binaries, and the installer must use the correct one. So Apple has prepared to ease its customers through a transition, while M$ has not. OS X.6 is designed to run in either 32 or 64 mode and to easily switch between them as customer's needs require. This is a good example of the difference between the two companies. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
This is interesting stuff. Some if the things I read in the late 90s and early 2000s seemed to suggest that the Linux and BSD type platforms were antiquated. Probably FUD. But Apple is still moving forward and further refining and updating the OS X core. TPiwowar wrote: This explains a lot. Some things run in 32 bit, some in 64 bit. It all depends. http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html There is a lot of confusion about the fact that Snow Leopard starts by default with a 32-bit kernel even though nearly everything else is 64-bit (according to Apple all system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit). Snow Leopard is 64-bit for all users with a 64-bit CPU. The applications are, the memory space is. The ONLY THING that doesn't load into 64-bit - ON PURPOSE - is the kernel! The problem is compatibility with third-party drivers. Some programs are so deeply intertwined with the OS that they reach deeply into its bowels and modify its core, the kernel - these drivers are called kernel extensions (or kext). BTW, the new Mac OS ships this Friday. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
I can't imagine the need to switch between them will occur often. Presumably there will be a few people that upgrade their systems in mid-install, but not many I would imagine. Fewer still will be those that will do it without _expecting_ to reinstall the OS. So you're saying if I install OSX 32 bit today, then change my mobo and CPU, I can simply switch to 64 bit next year? Just throw a switch and no OS reinstall will be required? Nice, if true. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:16 PM, TPiwowart...@tjpa.com wrote: On Aug 25, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Tony B wrote: So now you're saying the only difference is the new Mac OS will combine both 64 and 32 bit versions in the same package, and the installer must choose 64 bit manually. Win7 will come in two different binaries, and the installer must use the correct one. So Apple has prepared to ease its customers through a transition, while M$ has not. OS X.6 is designed to run in either 32 or 64 mode and to easily switch between them as customer's needs require. This is a good example of the difference between the two companies. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
MS has not because no one would notice that they are running 64bit or 32bit. The only ones choosing 64 are those who know what it is, the ones who don't know..well they wouldn't use it anyhow and if they did, they wouldn't even know it. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:16 PM, TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com wrote: On Aug 25, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Tony B wrote: So now you're saying the only difference is the new Mac OS will combine both 64 and 32 bit versions in the same package, and the installer must choose 64 bit manually. Win7 will come in two different binaries, and the installer must use the correct one. So Apple has prepared to ease its customers through a transition, while M$ has not. OS X.6 is designed to run in either 32 or 64 mode and to easily switch between them as customer's needs require. This is a good example of the difference between the two companies. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
From what I understand this really is an under the hood update. It's not meant to be feature ridden for the end user. I've also read that this update will introduce technologies that will only be taken advantage of over time as applications are written specifically for the update. This is also true of vista and windows 7, the trouble with those two is MS wants to keep applications from the days of XP still viable. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Rich Schinnell richnrockvi...@gmail.comwrote: An interesting article in Info World. http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/snow-leopard-just-cheap-windows-7-knockoff-798 Quoted from the first para.. Where's the beef? That's the idiom that jumps to mind as I work my way through Galen Gruman's http://www.infoworld.com/d/mac/7-best-features-in-mac-os-x-snow-leopard-573The 7 best features in Mac OS X Snow Leopard. I knew the features list would be lean -- Apple has deliberately undersold Snow Leopard by pitching it as a relatively minor release -- but please! Gruman's article reads like a laundry list of borrowed features and derivative works. It's as if someone at Apple grabbed a copy of the Windows 7 beta and simply Xeroxed the release notes. For example: 64-bitness: Yippee,! Apple finally goes 64-bit -- BFD! As a Windows user, I've been livin' la vida 64-bit for more than three years. Vista was the first mainstream desktop OS to deliver a viable 64-bit experience, and Windows 7 has taken this migration further by making it the preferred flavor for business users. Maybe I will get banned for bringing this up. I have my reynolds wrap hat on to deflect the AFB's barbs. Rich At 03:16 PM 8/25/2009, you wrote: Date:Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:58:38 -0400 From:TPiwowar t...@tjpa.com Subject: Mac Transition to 64-Bit This explains a lot. Some things run in 32 bit, some in 64 bit. It all depends. http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html There is a lot of confusion about the fact that Snow Leopard starts by default with a 32-bit kernel even though nearly everything else is 64-bit (according to Apple all system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit). Snow Leopard is 64-bit for all users with a 64-bit CPU. The applications are, the memory space is. The ONLY THING that doesn't load into 64-bit - ON PURPOSE - is the kernel! The problem is compatibility with third-party drivers. Some programs are so deeply intertwined with the OS that they reach deeply into its bowels and modify its core, the kernel - these drivers are called kernel extensions (or kext). BTW, the new Mac OS ships this Friday. M$'s Vista replacement is still way out there in the future. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** * * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Rich Schinnell wrote: http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/snow-leopard-just-cheap- windows-7-knockoff-798 Oh pleeese! A half-baked WFB spouting about the wonderfulness of Vista plus claims that X.6 is somehow a copy of M$'s yet to be released OS. Tell us about how Apple got into Steve's TimeMachine, zapped into the future, and came back with copies of M$ innovative work. (They also returned with a deed to a bridge to Brooklyn.) WFBs apparently have not yet figured out that Apple's TimeMachine is a backup program. Read the comments that follow this article. Lots of them: I'm not even a Mac user and even I can see this article is biased rubbish... If there was only 1 or 2 errors here, I would try to write something to shed light on those error, but as it is, the whole article is so hopelessly biased and misleading that I feel like the best thing for me to do would be to write a very pointed suggestion to the author that he amend this article with an apology and promise to do his homework before he ever does this kind of bashing again... As you say, there are no 'issues' in this article to respond to, only outright lies and distortions which do not in themselves merit much of a response. What is far more interesting than the article's content is the dishonesty of the author himself and the willingness of IW to condone it. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:42 PM, mike wrote: MS has not because no that they are running 64bit or 32bit. Got it. Official M$ line is that 64-bit is useless, something that no one would notice. You think we are stupid? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
I would think that you'll be dead meat after this post :)) Richard P. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Rich Schinnellrichnrockvi...@gmail.com wrote: An interesting article in Info World. http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/snow-leopard-just-cheap-windows-7-knockoff-798 Maybe I will get banned for bringing this up. I have my reynolds wrap hat on to deflect the AFB's barbs. Rich * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
On Aug 25, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Tony B wrote: So you're saying if I install OSX 32 bit today, then change my mobo and CPU, I can simply switch to 64 bit next year? Just throw a switch and no OS reinstall will be required? Nice, if true. The OS loads either the 32 or 64-bit kernel at startup. Default is 32. At some point the default will be 64. This doesn't paint customers into a corner. Yes very nice -- typical Apple engineering. * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
Re: [CGUYS] Mac Transition to 64-Bit
Nope they don't get paid until it is shipped! Did not order through MS, ordered through merchants who cannot charge until it is shipped., Who's on first? is very important to Tom. Humor him and maybe he'll shut up about it. Good show old boy! Maybe next time is when we catch the weasel in the act before you do! Jolly good! Get your facts straight. Tom uses facts? * ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *
