Firefox's 64bit "Shiretoko" | Most Powerful Browser In The World? [Archive]

SirPhilip

28th February 2009, 07:08 PM

Is Vista 64 twice as bad as Vista 32? My thoughts, but reversed: is Vista 64 just twice less sluggish? I'm probably not alone. Microsoft's principle approach to any solution reflects the SUV: with 5000lb curb weight capable of 0-60/7.0 seconds that requires 700%+ more work to propel eight adults in reasonable comfort than necessary, and this stands as impressive. Comments I've read surprisingly suggest solid homework on Microsoft's part: headache free drivers, strong integration, dataset handling. What could happen is Microsoft throwing Apple a curveball with Windows 7 for high performance computing. This could occur as Linux and OSX are becoming very competitive in this regard.

A red flag is that Vista 64 apparently requires 8gb of RAM for brisk performance.

dtugg

28th February 2009, 07:19 PM

A red flag is that Vista64 apparently requires 8gb of RAM for brisk performance.

No it doesn't. In fact, I doubt most people would ever do anything that requires 8 gigs of memory.

PixyMisa

28th February 2009, 07:41 PM

A red flag is that Vista64 apparently requires 8gb of RAM for brisk performance.
Vista32 also requires 8GB of RAM for brisk performance.

Unfortunately...

PixyMisa

28th February 2009, 07:57 PM

No it doesn't. In fact, I doubt most people would ever do anything that requires 8 gigs of memory.
I know I'm not most people. ;) I regret not going for 16GB in my new computer. :(

I do office tasks (Word, Excel), graphics (Photoship, Fireworks, Illustrator), web design (Dreamweaver, Flash), DTP (InDesign, Acrobat), music composition (Acid Pro, Cinescore, SoundForge), database work (MySQL, Postgres, SQL Server, DB2), 3D (Carrara, Bryce, Poser), video editing and subtitling (a bunch of apps), software development (Visual Studio, Python, PHP, Perl, Ruby), run virtual machines (VMWare, VirtualBox), play games (Sims 2, Civ IV, Mass Effect, Fallout 3) and run eight different browsers for testing (Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari, Chrome, Flock, Seamonkey, Songbird). Then there's all the little necessities like iTunes and uTorrent and Thunderbird and Winamp. Not all of them all the time, but only because I can't with a mere 8GB and 4 cores.

Memory is so cheap these days, up to the 8GB point, that it makes no sense not to have 8GB. If I could keep adding memory as cheaply as the first 8GB, I'd have 64GB by now. Maybe more.

dtugg

28th February 2009, 08:21 PM

Memory is so cheap these days, up to the 8GB point, that it makes no sense not to have 8GB. If I could keep adding memory as cheaply as the first 8GB, I'd have 64GB by now. Maybe more.

Unfortunately, 4GB laptop chips are very expensive. :( That's OK. 4GB serves me great unless I have a bunch of programs open.

28th February 2009, 09:04 PM

Aerik

28th February 2009, 09:08 PM

4GB RAM, nice D.D.D. ! You got the video/graphics capability to keep up with that? I'm only using 512Megs RAM.

Which may be why my Shiretoko is treating me a bit odd. I'm on a 32 bit system.

dtugg

28th February 2009, 09:36 PM

Hmmm... It does say "64-bit operating system" on the System panel. I'm running 4GB of RAM - wow. Did not know that.

So should I try some 64-bit browser? What's the technical advantages over current browsers?

And should this mean anything else to me? Am I underusing power or something? Should I be adjusting my settings to take advantage of this new thing?

64 bit browsers will run faster. But you won't be able view any kind of flash content because there is no 64 bit flash player yet. You probably already have IE x64. If you want to try the Firefox version, you can get it here. (http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download)

You don't have to worry about adjusting any settings or anything for Vista64, it is already all taken care of. You might want to see if there are x64 versions of any software that you use (there isn't for most). Two that I can think of that I use are Photoshop and iTunes.

SirPhilip

28th February 2009, 09:41 PM

No it doesn't. In fact, I doubt most people would ever do anything that requires 8 gigs of memory. Indeed, however several comments suggest 'only 4 gigs' noticeably affects general performance. To understand why this is laughable requires experience with what a real high performance operating system is like: Solaris, AIX or SGI Irix and scaled Linux systems.

I have a SGI Octane, Dual CPU 300Mhz Irix 6.5 (MIPS64) workstation with 1536gb of RAM. An FEA simulation capped to 1500gb, you could close the window instantly, with no inertia on any other application. No pauses, hangs, just a linear progression based on the allocated resources you set. Crashes are virtually nonexistent on any of these architectures. You use these systems enough - you start to treat them like someone who owns a Shelby Cobra.

rdaneel

28th February 2009, 10:04 PM

Hmmm... It does say "64-bit operating system" on the System panel. I'm running 4GB of RAM - wow. Did not know that.

So should I try some 64-bit browser? What's the technical advantages over current browsers?

And should this mean anything else to me? Am I underusing power or something? Should I be adjusting my settings to take advantage of this new thing?The chief advantage of 64 bit Windows for the average user right now, is that it allows for more system memory. 32 bit Windows is limited to 4 gigs and it can't even use all of that (I think it only uses 3.3 gig), so you are getting some improved performance. Right now if you want to see if your getting the most out of your system, find out if your laptop can take more memory, and, if you can afford it of course, max it out.

jsiv

1st March 2009, 11:09 AM

I can't tell if this thread is serious or not. First of all, I don't believe Mozilla provides 64-bit binaries for Windows at all, so I guess you got it from somewhere else. Second, the performance benefit of the 64-bit version is only marginal. Flash is not available in 64-bit, so there's no way it can perform better. They've had years to produce a 64-bit version but haven't been able to yet. Personally I wouldn't expect to see one this year either.

The lack of 64-bit plugins and codecs is the reason why browsers and media players are usually only available as 32-bit.

The two biggest performance issues in a browser is Flash and ads, really. Ads because they're usually served from a third-party server that often takes a while to respond and slows down the page loading, and Flash because it is extremely resource-intensive and was never designed to be used for putting 10+ animated banners on a page. You'd be amazed at how much faster the browsing can get if you disable flash and block advertising servers that are slow.

As for memory, Vista and Windows 7 do just fine with 2GB of RAM. That's not to say that there aren't tasks where you really do need more (like video editing or graphics work), but for most people it's more than enough.

NewtonTrino

1st March 2009, 11:15 AM

I would recommend more than 2GB for gaming as well.

I'll be install windows7-64 tomorrow hopefully.

1st March 2009, 12:25 PM

I'm apparently running IE7.0.6001. I guessed as much, since I've been running Flash just fine.

I'll look into Firefox and the 64-bit IE, but for now I guess I'll just consider myself 'ready for the future'.

How do you find the RAM capacity on a laptop? Documentation on this puppy was pretty lean.

According to the blasted 'Performance' rating center on this thing, I need better graphics. It rates my graphics performance at 3.0. But I have an ATI Radeon x1270 that claims to have over 1800 mb memory (which I somehow doubt)... OK, how do I find out what my Graphics card IS actually doing?

Ugh... I'm clueless suddenly. Curse laptops.

Still, they're fun.

jsiv

1st March 2009, 12:34 PM

You can type msinfo32 into the start menu and hit enter to see more detailed information about the machine.

If you're running the 64-bit version of Windows, the default Internet Explorer shortcuts point to the 32-bit version. The 64-bit version should be on the start menu as Internet Explorer (64-bit).

The 64-bit Media Player doesn't have any shortcuts, but it's hiding in C:\Program Files\Windows Media Player\wmplayer.exe.

dtugg

1st March 2009, 12:50 PM

How do you find the RAM capacity on a laptop? Documentation on this puppy was pretty lean.

Well, laptops generally have two RAM slots. I guessing that since you have Vista64, you have 4GB (2xGB). It is possible to upgrade to 8GB (2x4GB), but those chips are like $300 each.

According to the blasted 'Performance' rating center on this thing, I need better graphics. It rates my graphics performance at 3.0. But I have an ATI Radeon x1270 that claims to have over 1800 mb memory (which I somehow doubt)... OK, how do I find out what my Graphics card IS actually doing?

You have an on board graphics, it is integrated into the motherboard. It takes memory from the system RAM as needed, up to 1800mb. With a set up like that, you won't be able to run any newer graphics intensive games (probably anything newer than 2005-2006). But you should be good for anything else. I'm pretty sure there is no way to update it so you are kind of stuck with it until you get a new computer.

1st March 2009, 01:37 PM

Well that's OK then - I always wait a few years to buy games (SPORE being the exception) until they're in my $10 - $20 price range. I'm finally getting my Sims 2 running the way I like - that'll entertain me for a couple more years.

And 4GB will do for now. :D

GreNME

1st March 2009, 02:23 PM

A red flag is that Vista 64 apparently requires 8gb of RAM for brisk performance.

Do you have any understanding of how memory management works?

Here's a clue: if your machine has 2 GB of RAM, Vista (and Win 7, and Leopard, and Snow Leopard) are going to use most of (~1.3 to 1.5) that 2 GB. Double the RAM, and the amount used by the OS will scale with it. Double that, and again the RAM usage will scale to using anywhere between 50-75% of the available RAM in regular usage. Using physical RAM is way more efficient than using virtual memory, so any operating that doesn't follow this method is using the RAM inefficiently. Unused RAM is wasted RAM.

SirPhilip

2nd March 2009, 12:18 AM

Do you have any understanding of how memory management works? Here's a clue: if your machine has 2 GB of RAM, Vista (and Win 7, and Leopard, and Snow Leopard) are going to use most of (~1.3 to 1.5) that 2 GB. Double the RAM, and the amount used by the OS will scale with it. Double that, and again the RAM usage will scale to using anywhere between 50-75% of the available RAM in regular usage. Using physical RAM is way more efficient than using virtual memory, so any operating that doesn't follow this method is using the RAM inefficiently. Unused RAM is wasted RAM.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5231/ram.jpg

A pristine performance optimized XP Professional 64bit idle, set to scale from 500mb to 4gb. Exactly what is Vista justifying 2gb or even 1gb idle? The short answer: nonsense, and lots of it.

SirPhilip

2nd March 2009, 12:51 AM

It is very fast and I would use it all the time except for the fact that there is no 64 bit version of Adobe Flash so you cannot view any web pages with flash content. I think they are going to release one in the near future. It's rather irrelevant so far as I'm noticing. As expected, it's instantaneous with high definition Flash content (http://www.vimeo.com/channels/hd) with ten instances up. Very cool for an Alpha.

dtugg

2nd March 2009, 04:34 AM

It's rather irrelevant so far as I'm noticing. As expected, it's instantaneous with high definition Flash content (http://www.vimeo.com/channels/hd) with ten instances up. Very cool for an Alpha.

Dude, if you can run Flash of any kind, it is not a 64 bit browser. There simply isn't a 64 bit Flash player (at least for Windows and Mac) yet and you cannot run the 32 bit plugin with a 64 bit browser.

GreNME

2nd March 2009, 05:23 AM

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5231/ram.jpg

A pristine performance optimized XP Professional 64bit idle, set to scale from 500mb to 4gb. Exactly what is Vista justifying 2gb or even 1gb idle? The short answer: nonsense, and lots of it.

So, the answer to my question about what you know of memory management is pretty much zilch or ten years out of date. Unused RAM is wasted RAM on a system being used as a workstation or home computer. Until you can understand why that concept plays a large role in the memory management of pretty much all the major desktop operating systems out there today, I'm not sure that the conversation is going to progress much, if at all.

jsiv

2nd March 2009, 09:48 AM

The guy is clearly running 32-bit software. 64-bit Windows includes an emulator that seamlessly runs 32-bit software.

rdaneel

2nd March 2009, 10:04 AM

I've been looking over the page the OP linked to. I don't find anything about it being 64 bit. The current 3.0.6 release of Firefox is running fine on my copy of the 64 bit Win7 Beta.

SirPhilip

2nd March 2009, 12:18 PM

I've been looking over the page the OP linked to. I don't find anything about it being 64 bit. The current 3.0.6 release of Firefox is running fine on my copy of the 64 bit Win7 Beta. It is clearly (http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Download:Firefox) 64bit. If it isn't, the development team has done some very sharp optimizations to the 32bit Firefox implementation.

GreNME

2nd March 2009, 12:18 PM

jsiv

2nd March 2009, 12:43 PM

It is clearly (http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Download:Firefox) 64bit. If it isn't, the development team has done some very sharp optimizations to the 32bit Firefox implementation.
It is, if you installed that third-party 64-bit build and not one from an official Mozilla site.

But the point still stands, it is not technically possible to use 32-bit plugins such as Flash in a 64-bit browser because a 64-bit process cannot load a 32-bit library.

You can easily tell what you're running from Task Manager. A 32-bit process will have *32 next to it.

And I have tried both the 64-bit and the 32-bit version, and any performance difference is marginal.

SirPhilip

2nd March 2009, 01:02 PM

So, the answer to my question about what you know of memory management is pretty much zilch or ten years out of date. Unused RAM is wasted RAM on a system being used as a workstation or home computer. Until you can understand why that concept plays a large role in the memory management of pretty much all the major desktop operating systems out there today, I'm not sure that the conversation is going to progress much, if at all. Fail. Proper software uses minimal resources - and if large - does so in a stable and efficient manner in respect to the operating system as possible, regardless of hardware ceiling. This is good engineering practices. Windows 7 might be surprisingly brisk because Microsoft understands the necessity. As for understanding memory management, you've used OSX and Windows, likely predominantly 32bit applications, and are comically in disbelief how Microsoft's approach is fundamentally abysmal.

Same for iTunes, which is obnoxious, the point of which to forcefully encourage you to purchase products and view advertisements. A smarter 5% of us don't put up with it (http://agoraphobeus.free.fr/iShuffle/).

GreNME

2nd March 2009, 02:04 PM

Fail.

I see you get your argument techniques from 4chan, but could you just once offer any kind of substance to show you know what you're talking about?

Proper software uses minimal resources - and if large - does so in a stable and efficient manner in respect to the operating system as possible, regardless of hardware ceiling. This is good engineering practices. Windows 7 might be surprisingly brisk because Microsoft understands the necessity. As for understanding memory management, you've used OSX and Windows, likely predominantly 32bit applications, and are comically in disbelief how Microsoft's approach is fundamentally abysmal.

What the hell conversation are you having? Is this supposed to be in the other thread? If you honestly think that the Mac OS and Vista don't handle memory similarly, you're obviously not bothering to check the system resources being used on a Mac, use a completely bare Dock, run zero software on it, or some combination thereof. I'm typing this right now on my MBP with 4GB of RAM in it, running a Firefox window and Adium-- that's it-- and yet I'm still at just under 50% RAM usage, which is good because that means the stuff on my Dock will load faster and there's less application lag opening files on the computer. Vista works the same way, so I don't see why you're trying to turn this thread into a "Mac vs. PC" argument as well.

Same for iTunes, which is obnoxious, the point of which to forcefully encourage you to purchase products and view advertisements. A smarter 5% of us don't put up with it (http://agoraphobeus.free.fr/iShuffle/).

Ah, so you're one of those people-- the software/platform snob. Do you define yourself by what you wear, too? Seriously, if you're not going to offer substantial arguments and instead you want to run this decade-old pseudo-revolutionary BS in place of actual arguments and evidence to back them up, then I'm really not going to bother.

ETA: Before it's said that Vista by default uses more, I have 4GB in Vista on my home computer, and with me VPN-ed into it, Firefox with about eight tabs open (one with a video, and all having been opened for days), and Pidgin running, the computer is using a whopping 60% of the RAM. Keeping in mind the fact that Firefox still has this nagging problem where being left open progressively eats more and more RAM, that's pretty much the same kind of RAM usage as my Leopard laptop. I have never seen any appreciable difference between the two operating systems in this regard, because they both use RAM as necessary to keep stuff open and to have prefetched data ready for opening new programs or files (in Windows it's called prefetch, in OS X it's something else). This is efficiency at work, because both operating systems are keeping what I have open as well as holding other stuff I use regularly to open more quickly, thus allowing me a smoother user experience when I want something to work instead of trying to rely solely on the bottleneck of the hard drive: RAM is faster than a hard drive, and unused RAM is wasted performance-wise when it's not being used by the OS or applications/data.

chulbert

3rd March 2009, 01:48 PM

Fail. Proper software uses minimal resources - and if large - does so in a stable and efficient manner in respect to the operating system as possible, regardless of hardware ceiling. This is good engineering practices. Windows 7 might be surprisingly brisk because Microsoft understands the necessity. As for understanding memory management, you've used OSX and Windows, likely predominantly 32bit applications, and are comically in disbelief how Microsoft's approach is fundamentally abysmal.

You can claim that proper software should require minimal resources; however, robust software should make use of every available resource to enhance your experience. Unused memory is an available resource. All modern operating systems use that free memory to cache and pre-fetch all sorts of data so that it's available when you request it.

You mistakenly assume that the 1-2 GB of memory consumed by your idle system is somehow denied to you. It is not. If you demonstrated a need for that memory the operating system would make it available for use in an instant by reducing or dumping its caches.

If an operating system did not behave this way and kept in memory only vital information, your overall experience would be degraded substantially.

This is not to say Windows, or even OS X, are as lean as they could be. But you cannot make that determination simply by examining the memory usage of an idle system.

Soapy Sam

3rd March 2009, 02:02 PM

I know I'm not most people. ;) I regret not going for 16GB in my new computer. :(

I do office tasks (Word, Excel), graphics (Photoship, Fireworks, Illustrator), web design (Dreamweaver, Flash), DTP (InDesign, Acrobat), music composition (Acid Pro, Cinescore, SoundForge), database work (MySQL, Postgres, SQL Server, DB2), 3D (Carrara, Bryce, Poser), video editing and subtitling (a bunch of apps), software development (Visual Studio, Python, PHP, Perl, Ruby), run virtual machines (VMWare, VirtualBox), play games (Sims 2, Civ IV, Mass Effect, Fallout 3) and run eight different browsers for testing (Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari, Chrome, Flock, Seamonkey, Songbird). Then there's all the little necessities like iTunes and uTorrent and Thunderbird and Winamp. Not all of them all the time, but only because I can't with a mere 8GB and 4 cores.

Memory is so cheap these days, up to the 8GB point, that it makes no sense not to have 8GB. If I could keep adding memory as cheaply as the first 8GB, I'd have 64GB by now. Maybe more.

Pixy - I don't want to worry you or anything, but have you ever considered you may be suffering from Compulsive Nerd Disorder?:boxedin:

SirPhilip

5th March 2009, 02:24 PM

If you demonstrated a need for that memory the operating system would make it available for use in an instant by reducing or dumping its caches. This is not to say Windows, or even OS X, are as lean as they could be. But you cannot make that determination simply by examining the memory usage of an idle system. Operating system resource management is far more complicated than apparent physical ram use. With HPC operating systems it's clear and clean - the case with Windows, I'm actually probably wrong here. When an operating system allocates 90% physical ram to multiple applications, how does it behave? Remember higher hardware spec requires higher reliance on proper hardware/operating system communication or as the case with supercomputers: the higher the specification, the higher potential optimization square performance. Microsoft (Apple to a degree) essentially have reverse goals: less development time required. Time is money, if applications basically work, a necessity is not required for low-level optimizations without affecting profitability.

Necessity is the mother of invention, abysmal and novel. Windows was and is designed in a mass market focus, basic functionality, and developer profitability. Apple even more so, except excellence is a competitive requirement. iTunes is every bad Microsoft habit plus. My point is, this is amusingly not going to stay that way.

SirPhilip

5th March 2009, 02:46 PM

Seriously, if you're not going to offer substantial arguments and instead you want to run this decade-old pseudo-revolutionary BS in place of actual arguments and evidence to back them up, then I'm really not going to bother. It's as simple as benchmarking, but no cross application tests address multithreaded 64bit applications actually utilizing 3gb and above right now. But you are going to see a performance disparity emerge and widen, I can guarantee that.

GreNME

5th March 2009, 08:39 PM

It's as simple as benchmarking, but no cross application tests address multithreaded 64bit applications actually utilizing 3gb and above right now. But you are going to see a performance disparity emerge and widen, I can guarantee that.

What is the benchmark you're using, then? Jebus, man, at least substantiate your assertions with data. Your guarantees thus far are not supported by your displays of ignorance about modern memory management.

chulbert

9th March 2009, 12:13 PM

...I'm actually probably wrong here. Great! I'm glad we cleared that up.

SirPhilip

10th March 2009, 09:50 PM

What is the benchmark you're using, then? Jebus, man, at least substantiate your assertions with data. Your guarantees thus far are not supported by your displays of ignorance about modern memory management. My point is a proper operating system should be capable of allocating (at least) 10 out of 16gb. I can roughly guarantee several things (and very over-optimistic in respect to Windows) as well:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9910/gap.png

SirPhilip

10th March 2009, 09:59 PM

Great! I'm glad we cleared that up. I'm clueless what logic Microsoft follows for application memory management, and probably everyone else who actually understands the difference.

GreNME

10th March 2009, 10:01 PM

My point is a proper operating system should be capable of allocating (at least) 10 out of 16gb. I can roughly guarantee several things (and very over-optimistic in respect to Windows) as well:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9910/gap.png

Like I said, your guarantees are pretty much worthless without quantification. In other words: show what measures you're using, and stop blowing smoke. What are the benchmarks you're using, how are you reaching your parameters, and most importantly where are your repeatable result data sets?

My guess is that you have none, and rely on typical interweb flame war fodder for your information.

SirPhilip

11th March 2009, 10:55 AM

Like I said, your guarantees are pretty much worthless without quantification. In other words: show what measures you're using, and stop blowing smoke. What are the benchmarks you're using, how are you reaching your parameters, and most importantly where are your repeatable result data sets? Irrelevant here. I'm not aware of any Windows application that scales above 5gb besides Unigraphics or Softimage. Even if, it is irrespect of a notable point: Windows does not scale applications beyond 40% with any stability. If Windows 7 has 16gb to use, 6 or 7 of that can be likely used - unless some component was overhauled, not affecting compatibility somehow.

My guess is that you have none, and rely on typical interweb flame war fodder for your information. Contrasting Windows to a professional operating system and cross-platform high performance software behavior (not OSX or Linux) is typical? I've Googled it often - we're among about two or five coherent exchanges scattered about.

SirPhilip

11th March 2009, 11:20 AM

Until dynamic content software-- Flash, Silverlight, etc.-- are also making 64-bit versions to install, the 64-bit browsers are mostly going to be a novelty to the user market. Hopefully, the big names (MS, Adobe) pull their heads out of wherever they're stuck and get the 64-bit versions of their browser add-ins soon. One trend I see is hybrid web applications and browsers actually utilizing GPUs. Of course even in 2009, this still would be 10% of the web's focus.

GreNME

11th March 2009, 11:46 AM

Irrelevant here. I'm not aware of any Windows application that scales above 5gb besides Unigraphics or Softimage. Even if, it is irrespect of a notable point: Windows does not scale applications beyond 40% with any stability. If Windows 7 has 16gb to use, 6 or 7 of that can be likely used - unless some component was overhauled, not affecting compatibility somehow.

In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges. I just wanted you to get specific enough to where it was clear to everyone else. You're still completely incorrect about memory management-- which you've conveniently moved away from-- but the fact that you're trying to compare two different types of system is showing that you, in fact, have zero accurate benchmark to use in terms of user-level performance in the first place. You may as well be comparing a Chevy Camaro to a MiG fighter.

Contrasting Windows to a professional operating system and cross-platform high performance software behavior (not OSX or Linux) is typical? I've Googled it often - we're among about two or five coherent exchanges scattered about.

Windows is a professional operating system. What you are (mistakenly) conflating are special-duty systems meant for doing certain specific things really well with the term "professional operating system." The HPC operating systems you're being all snooty about are meant for handling scientific calculations, specialized rendering, machine operations (or operational computations), and so on-- not end-user desktop tasks. You've been blowing smoke for several posts now, both on this thread and the other thread you linked to this one from, and it's all because you're practically arguing that a user-based client operating system is inherently inferior to special-purpose computing platforms because the client OSes don't do the same things that the special purpose OSes do. Utterly ridiculous.

By your logic, I could complain that auto makers are inherently inferior because they aren't producing flying cars, even though VTOL capabilities are already in use by some fighter aircraft.

GreNME

11th March 2009, 11:53 AM

One trend I see is hybrid web applications and browsers actually utilizing GPUs. Of course even in 2009, this still would be 10% of the web's focus.

Name three web apps that do, please. Then name one browser that does. I know of three (normal) operating systems that do (or can), and I know of two APIs than can access those hardware calls from the OS, but what you describe is a whole level closer to the actual end user than I am aware of existing.

Your difficulty: if you mention an app or browser that's making use of those lower-level abilities, then you're not talking about the app or browser doing the work, you're likely talking about the API that gives the app or browser those cycles. But you knew that already, right? :rolleyes:

jsiv

11th March 2009, 01:38 PM

I don't know why you bother. SirPhilip is clearly a crazy person.

SirPhilip

11th March 2009, 01:59 PM

In other words, you're comparing apples to oranges. I just wanted you to get specific enough to where it was clear to everyone else. You're still completely incorrect about memory management-- which you've conveniently moved away from. How. By pointing out that Windows manages it atrociously?

The HPC operating systems you're being all snooty about are meant for handling scientific calculations, specialized rendering, machine operations (or operational computations), and so on-- not end-user desktop tasks. There should be no difference. The average Windows user is tasked with vastly more system maintenance than Linux, OSX, or Unix users which involve: defragging, registry cleaning, malignant file checking and prevention, reinstallation every year, constant system modifications and alterations. If several operating systems can perform the same tasks without these flaws, with better hardware communication, higher efficiency, and without cumbersome features, what does that suggest?

..a user-based client operating system is inherently inferior to special-purpose computing platforms because the client OSes don't do the same things that the special purpose OSes do. Utterly ridiculous. It is actually utterly ridiculous and in fact amusing, what the average Windows user has to manage to keep the system in working condition in comparison to a smartly set up Linux, OSX, or Unix system.

SirPhilip

11th March 2009, 02:12 PM

Name three web apps that.. (Apparently he didn't even read here either..)

SirPhilip

11th March 2009, 06:47 PM

...is showing that you, in fact, have zero accurate benchmark to use in terms of user-level performance in the first place. You may as well be comparing a Chevy Camaro to a MiG fighter If you remember: a SUV, identical to last year's model sporting a curb weight over 5000lbs, a 400hp engine made by Ford and a DVD player that talks. Do keep up. Our dispute is that 5000lbs 400hp and 17mpg to grocery shop strikes you as impressive engineering, and it actually isn't. That Windows manages memory in a uncomplicated, uncumbersome manner (the way it behaves on other operating systems) was an oversight of mine. How it does this is not very fascinating either, I'll admit.

Spyke

12th March 2009, 06:47 AM

I'm running XP64 Pro, a core i7 920, 6 Gig tri-channel RAM, GTX 285 etc...

I only use IE (I use FF for everything else and find it great) to connect to Windows Update. The thing that made me laugh is that when connecting to the Windows Update site it pops up and tells me that I have to open a 32bit version of IE... man.

Anyways, I'm curious as to the benefits and viability of switching over to FF 64bit.

I'll have to read this thread over a few times as things got kinda confusing there for a while. :)

GreNME

12th March 2009, 09:22 AM

If you remember: a SUV, identical to last year's model sporting a curb weight over 5000lbs, a 400hp engine made by Ford and a DVD player that talks. Do keep up. Our dispute is that 5000lbs 400hp and 17mpg to grocery shop strikes you as impressive engineering, and it actually isn't. That Windows manages memory in a uncomplicated, uncumbersome manner (the way it behaves on other operating systems) was an oversight of mine. How it does this is not very fascinating either, I'll admit.

You have the most charming way of admitting that you were wrong before. It's kind of cute.

SirPhilip

12th March 2009, 12:49 PM

You have the most charming way of admitting that you were wrong before. It's kind of cute. Again, wrong about what. I've been talking about unused ram. Think about this: if Windows 7 isn't stable using 10 with 16gb, by implication it requires 6gb to run, not far less. Benchmarking isn't required to plausibly assume this.

jsiv

12th March 2009, 01:07 PM

I think the real issue here is that you're talking out of your ass and that there is little truth to your unsubstantiated claims.

dtugg

12th March 2009, 06:40 PM

Again, wrong about what. I've been talking about unused ram. Think about this: if Windows 7 isn't stable using 10 with 16gb, by implication it requires 6gb to run, not far less. Benchmarking isn't required to plausibly assume this.

No. That is complete nonsense. Windows 7 runs great on on my laptop which has 4GB.

GreNME

12th March 2009, 06:58 PM

No. That is complete nonsense. Windows 7 runs great on on my laptop which has 4GB.

Yeah, but it can't beat an Octane on a comparison of terraflops or computing with Matlab, so it's obviously crap. ;)

SirPhilip

13th March 2009, 05:17 AM

No. That is complete nonsense. Windows 7 runs great on on my laptop which has 4GB. If you have 4GB then attempt to use 3GB of that - any application. Windows 7 probably requires 200mb physical ram, less or more than XP, to run idle.

SirPhilip

13th March 2009, 05:19 AM

I think the real issue here is that you're talking out of your ass and that there is little truth to your unsubstantiated claims. Do I really have to bother to take a series of elaborate screengrabs illustrating this..

SirPhilip

13th March 2009, 05:41 AM

Yeah, but it can't beat an Octane on a comparison of terraflops or computing with Matlab, so it's obviously crap. ;) Windows 7 is Vista, both of which offer over XP nothing besides nonsense. It may well be less crap, but a sham again. The appeal remember is supposed application performance: It's probably 20% quicker than XP at best, feel free to come back if credible benchmarks prove otherwise.

GreNME

13th March 2009, 09:44 AM

If you have 4GB then attempt to use 3GB of that - any application. Windows 7 probably requires 200mb physical ram, less or more than XP, to run idle.

Again, showing you have no idea how modern OS memory management systems work. Any OS, not just Win 7 or Vista or XP, can allocate far more than just the present system memory.

Windows 7 is Vista, both of which offer over XP nothing besides nonsense. It may well be less crap, but a sham again. The appeal remember is supposed application performance: It's probably 20% quicker than XP at best, feel free to come back if credible benchmarks prove otherwise.

You can't even name an available benchmarking schema (that's credible) you want to even work from, so you're just moving goalposts around (again). The best benchmark to use is responsiveness while working on various tasks, which is subjective in even the best scenarios, yet the more modern the OS on the latest hardware the better responsiveness you'll typically get. There's a reason for that, but you're too wrapped up in your RAM footprint nonsense to understand why.

ZouPrime

13th March 2009, 09:58 AM

Windows 7 is Vista, both of which offer over XP nothing besides nonsense.

Vista is way more secure than XP. Because of the UAC, and because of a plethora of other measures Microsoft finally implemented in their OS. Granted it's may not be enough to justify an upgrade, but Vista is definitively a huge improvement in that regard.

SirPhilip

14th March 2009, 03:21 AM

Again, showing you have no idea how modern OS memory management systems work. Any OS, not just Win 7 or Vista or XP, can allocate far more than just the present system memory. The page file isn't remotely the context here. The point of physical ram is to avoid that as much as possible.

You can't even name an available benchmarking schema (that's credible) you want to even work from, so you're just moving goalposts around (again). I'm not moving goalposts. What I said is plausible, 64bit multithreaded applications are a class by themselves. If OSX - or for that matter Linux, offers scalability and streamlined development, which is very plausible, you will see them significantly outperform anything on Windows 7.

The best benchmark to use is responsiveness while working on various tasks, which is subjective in even the best scenarios, yet the more modern the OS on the latest hardware the better responsiveness you'll typically get. There's a reason for that, but you're too wrapped up in your RAM footprint nonsense to understand why. An SUV with 400hp of torque is likewise responsive - at the lower end of the power band. But it can't take corners past 60mph and consumes more gas from that point on. You may be able to use 10gb out of 16gb in Windows 7, which is charming, but scale that even higher and the gap widens accordingly.

SirPhilip

14th March 2009, 03:28 AM

Vista is way more secure than XP. Because of the UAC, and because of a plethora of other measures Microsoft finally implemented in their OS. Granted it's may not be enough to justify an upgrade, but Vista is definitively a huge improvement in that regard. Microsoft basically charged hundreds of millions several hundred dollars for a service pack with a cartoonish GUI that could have been released a year after XP.

GreNME

14th March 2009, 08:25 PM

The page file isn't remotely the context here. The point of physical ram is to avoid that as much as possible.

Proving again you known jack and squat about memory management. If you knew how much you get wrong just on the fundamentals, let alone the specifics, there might be hope for you.

I'm not moving goalposts. What I said is plausible, 64bit multithreaded applications are a class by themselves. If OSX - or for that matter Linux, offers scalability and streamlined development, which is very plausible, you will see them significantly outperform anything on Windows 7.

"[W]hich is very plausible," you say? Sure, and if Virgin Airlines offered commercial space flights-- which is very plausible-- we could all debate this from space while enjoying the view. How about you debate what actually is instead of what might someday be?

The best benchmark to use is responsiveness while working on various tasks, which is subjective in even the best scenarios, yet the more modern the OS on the latest hardware the better responsiveness you'll typically get. There's a reason for that, but you're too wrapped up in your RAM footprint nonsense to understand why.
An SUV with 400hp of torque is likewise responsive - at the lower end of the power band. But it can't take corners past 60mph and consumes more gas from that point on. You may be able to use 10gb out of 16gb in Windows 7, which is charming, but scale that even higher and the gap widens accordingly.

You've really taken "not getting the point" to an art form (and again failed to specify any type of benchmarking schema).

GreNME

14th March 2009, 08:26 PM

Microsoft basically charged hundreds of millions several hundred dollars for a service pack with a cartoonish GUI that could have been released a year after XP.

Wow, it's like we're back in 2001.

ZouPrime

15th March 2009, 09:16 AM

Microsoft basically charged hundreds of millions several hundred dollars for a service pack with a cartoonish GUI that could have been released a year after XP.
You didn't address what I said. Were you answering someone else post?

Wowbagger

15th March 2009, 03:57 PM

kallsop

15th March 2009, 04:30 PM

I installed Vista Business 64 bit when it came out. The PC refuses to accept service pack 1. Microsoft have a special support system for update problems, and after about a month of trying their "solutions", they gave up and told me to reformat and reinstall Vista. Riiiight. I did reformat, and installed XP.

GreNME

15th March 2009, 05:13 PM

Could you please explain a little about what this chart means?

I can explain what this one means, and how it relates to the one SirPhillip put forth.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/pacman_pie.jpg

Wowbagger

16th March 2009, 07:48 PM

SirPhilip

16th March 2009, 10:25 PM

You didn't address what I said. Were you answering someone else post?

"Vista is way more secure than XP. Because of the UAC, and because of a plethora of other measures Microsoft finally implemented in their OS. Granted it's may not be enough to justify an upgrade, but Vista is definitively a huge improvement in that regard."

In response, I added agreeing: it is essentially a large service pack that should have been free. If you need any further assistance, please don't hesitate to ask.

SirPhilip

16th March 2009, 10:44 PM

SirPhilip,
Ignoring GreNME's insults, I would really like you to explain what your chart means. I would like to think it is useful, somehow. But, without an explanation, or even a source, I would be forced to conclude it is meaningless. And, you don't want me to do that, right? It's just a presumption that Windows will probably not scale applications past these markers. How was this determined? I consider this plausible as I've used literally every 64bit application and it has demonstrated to be unable to exceed this ratio. I'm not aware of anything contradicting this either. Yes, the rude comments are amusing - he's not accepting I'm right. That does not mean the chart is correct - it is educated assumption. But I shouldn't need to point this out.

Wowbagger

16th March 2009, 11:38 PM

It's just a presumption that Windows will probably not scale applications past these markers. How was this determined? I consider this plausible as I've used literally every 64bit application and it has demonstrated to be unable to exceed this ratio. I'm not aware of anything contradicting this either. Yes, the rude comments are amusing - he's not accepting I'm right. That does not mean the chart is correct - it is educated assumption. But I shouldn't need to point this out.So, you built the chart yourself?

dtugg

17th March 2009, 12:10 AM

SirPhilip

17th March 2009, 06:36 AM

So, you built the chart yourself? Took a few minutes.

SirPhilip

17th March 2009, 06:48 AM

Considering that you, in this thread, proved that you cannot tell whether or not an application is 64 bit, I am going to assume that you are talking out of your ass. It's a 64bit build and it will not run on 32bit systems, it's quite a bit brisker as far as I can tell.

SirPhilip

17th March 2009, 07:02 AM

I can explain what this one means, and how it relates to the one SirPhillip put forth. It was charity on my part - graphs are easy to understand. Simpler still though, is:

The Idiots Guide

Step 1: Get Windows to allocate 70% physical ram to any application.
Step 2: Run it in a stable manner and continue to transfer, edit or modify data around.
Step 3: Tell Sir Philip his chart is a off base estimation, and you'll approach his next one with even less maturity with an extra helping of Microsoft apologetics.

dtugg

17th March 2009, 08:50 AM

It's a 64bit build and it will not run on 32bit systems, it's quite a bit brisker as far as I can tell.

No. As has been explained to you, it is impossible for 64 bit browsers to run flash. So if you can see flash content at all, you are not using a 64 bit browser. Is that clear enough for you?

Wowbagger

17th March 2009, 09:15 AM

Took a few minutes.
Well, that explains why it doesn't mean anything.

Look, I'm sorry, dude, but if you are going to try to prove a point using a chart, it is kinda important that the chart be based on some sort of actual data.

Wowbagger

17th March 2009, 09:29 AM

No. As has been explained to you, it is impossible for 64 bit browsers to run flash. So if you can see flash content at all, you are not using a 64 bit browser. Is that clear enough for you? I know this is a long shot, but.... It is kinda-sorta possible to use a third-party (perhaps open source) Flash-file rendering plug-in, that was compiled for 64-bit browsers. Even though Adobe has not produced their own, official plug-in for them, yet.

dtugg

17th March 2009, 09:43 AM

I know this is a long shot, but.... It is kinda-sorta possible to use a third-party (perhaps open source) Flash-file rendering plug-in, that was compiled for 64-bit browsers. Even though Adobe has not produced their own, official plug-in for them, yet.

It's probably possible. But I've never heard of one, and I've looked, even before this thread. Do you know of one that exists?

jsiv

17th March 2009, 09:53 AM

Do I really have to bother to take a series of elaborate screengrabs illustrating this..
If you don't want to be a crank, then yes, you do have to prove your claims. How you're going to do that with some screenshots I'm not quite sure though.

I'm not even sure exactly what you're claiming, since half of what you write makes no sense at all.

So let's clear things up. If I write a quick program that allocates 70% of the available RAM and locks it (so it won't be paged out, in other words physical memory), what exactly is going to happen?

Are you claiming that Windows will become unstable and that things will start crashing? Or just that any other programs that are running will struggle if they have to start paging due to a lack of memory (which would manifest itself as the programs becoming sluggish and perhaps periodically unresponsive)?

GreNME

17th March 2009, 10:02 AM

It was charity on my part - graphs are easy to understand. Simpler still though, is:

The Idiots Guide

Step 1: Get Windows to allocate 70% physical ram to any application.
Step 2: Run it in a stable manner and continue to transfer, edit or modify data around.
Step 3: Tell Sir Philip his chart is a off base estimation, and you'll approach his next one with even less maturity with an extra helping of Microsoft apologetics.

Oh, as Wowbagger stated I was simply razzing you, but you've definitely put the icing on it by finally crossing into the region of accusing me of MS apologetics.

Look, when you can provide actual data we can actually talk about this like adults. As it stands, you refuse to supply any data, any benchmarking schema, any repeatable baselines, and any discrete knowledge of the things you're trying to criticize and have taken at face value. Until you do that, the conversation is stuck at "nuh uh!" and "uh huh!"

You have your own preferences, and that's cool. The only thing that's making this an argument is that you are asserting that your own preferences are absolutely inherently superior for reasons you aren't being very clear about.

Wowbagger

17th March 2009, 10:19 AM

It's probably possible. But I've never heard of one, and I've looked, even before this thread. Do you know of one that exists?
Not anything specific, or at least recent, myself. Like I said, it's a long shot. I only brought it up to counter the word "impossible" in your claim.

ZouPrime

17th March 2009, 11:07 AM

"Vista is way more secure than XP. Because of the UAC, and because of a plethora of other measures Microsoft finally implemented in their OS. Granted it's may not be enough to justify an upgrade, but Vista is definitively a huge improvement in that regard."

In response, I added agreeing: it is essentially a large service pack that should have been free. "It should have been free" is just a value jugement. I don't think you fully appreciate the differences between XP and Vista. Most of these differences are under the hood, but it doesn't make them less important.
If you need any further assistance, please don't hesitate to ask.I don't understand why you work so hard at keeping this little attitude.

I mean, you obviously don't really know what you're talking about regarding memory management in modern OSes. Everybody has understood it by now - this can be seen by the very questions you ask. By itself, there's nothing wrong with that - after all, we're all ignorants, we just don't ignore the same things. But your attitude, jeez. At least try to play the modesty card. Instead, you're trying to sound like you know your **** while you're, by your own account, an amateur.

SirPhilip

19th March 2009, 06:13 PM

Windows XP / Vista / Windows 7
Rudimentary 64bit Multithreaded Benchmarking Comparison Test

Step 1: Set your memory settings accordingly.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1017/cache.png

Step 2: Search the entire hard drive. Thumbnails on. This is going to get ugly.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8928/searchs.png

Step 3: Windows, if you have 4gb, will likely crash or stop responding before 900mb is allocated to the application. Note cpu core (s) usage and climbing PF. The application should crash promptly or more humorously Explorer, hurling the user into blackness.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8461/searchy.png

Conclusion
It should be pointed out that, as most know from experience, the task manager doesn't illustrate what is actually happening under the hood (http://www.theeldergeek.com/sizing_the_page_file.htm). This eliminates complicated protocol and effectively demonstrates how any given version of Windows will behave in respect to dataset handling, ram allocation, and cpu usage. In comparison to Unix, It is laughable.

SirPhilip

19th March 2009, 06:25 PM

"It should have been free" is just a value jugement. I don't think you fully appreciate the differences between XP and Vista. Most of these differences are under the hood, but it doesn't make them less important.I don't understand why you work so hard at keeping this little attitude. Half of this is self-excusion, and the other half insult. Now, to avoid looking oblivious - what I'm accused of, illustrate Vista outperforming XP in any practical, useful way. Vista isn't even a proper large service pack. Microsoft's resources did not necessitate a upgrade for whatever basic security upgrades are present in Vista. Most companies still don't want anything to do with Vista. Why is that?

SirPhilip

19th March 2009, 06:33 PM

Oh, as Wowbagger stated I was simply razzing you, but you've definitely put the icing on it by finally crossing into the region of accusing me of MS apologetics. Yes, strongly (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137638). Microsoft has a dismal corporate ethics history of mediocrity and market conquest, evidenced by everything from DRM to uninstalling either Vista or Windows 7.

SirPhilip

19th March 2009, 06:51 PM

You have your own preferences, and that's cool. The only thing that's making this an argument is that you are asserting that your own preferences are absolutely inherently superior for reasons you aren't being very clear about. Actually I could get technical about Windows' as an atrocious operating system for home use, but why bother when it is such a simple matter to understand. The average Vista installation, even managed, will become almost unusable after a year as a family computer.

SirPhilip

19th March 2009, 06:58 PM

No. As has been explained to you, it is impossible for 64 bit browsers to run flash. So if you can see flash content at all, you are not using a 64 bit browser. Is that clear enough for you? I'm aware that it runs under 32bit emulation. It is listed however as a 64bit build. For whatever reason, it is brisker than the recent non 64bit builds, and yes it does load Flash animations very nicely. If this is a misstatement it is on the part of whoever compiled it.

jsiv

19th March 2009, 07:09 PM

If it runs under 32-bit emulation then it is not a 64-bit program. The two are mutually exclusive, it's not a difficult concept. Neither is the fact that if you are using Flash, then you are running a 32-bit program. Are you incapable of checking if there's a *32 next to the process in Task Manager?

Also, I'm just not seeing your claims about memory management, nor do your screenshots really show anything of interest. But hey, I can make some too.

http://i44.tinypic.com/23rmqtv.png

http://i40.tinypic.com/2rc5udw.png

The only issue here is that any new allocations will have to be paged to disk due to a lack of memory, incurring a fairly heavy performance penalty. Other than that, no issues, and the system is perfectly usable.

GreNME

19th March 2009, 08:56 PM

Windows XP / Vista / Windows 7
Rudimentary 64bit Multithreaded Benchmarking Comparison Test

Step 1: Set your memory settings accordingly.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1017/cache.png

You really do have no clue. Changing the setting in Windows to "No paging file" does not stop the VMM components in the Windows kernel. That you're working from that assumption shows how little you understand about how Windows (or any modern operating system) handles memory management. The problem with your poor assumptions is that you seem to be unaware that memory limits for Windows is already documented (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx). Further, Mark Russinovich goes into detail about memory limits (http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx), and in a later post (http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx) he covers some methods you can use to test the limits of the RAM on a Windows machine, using software he developed himself.

So, when you're starting off on a mistaken assumption, can you explain why anyone should take you seriously?

Step 2: Search the entire hard drive. Thumbnails on. This is going to get ugly.

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8928/searchs.png

Mostly because it's not a useful test of the RAM.

Step 3: Windows, if you have 4gb, will likely crash or stop responding before 900mb is allocated to the application. Note cpu core (s) usage and climbing PF. The application should crash promptly or more humorously Explorer, hurling the user into blackness.http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8461/searchy.png
Conclusion
It should be pointed out that, as most know from experience, the task manager doesn't illustrate what is actually happening under the hood (http://www.theeldergeek.com/sizing_the_page_file.htm). This eliminates complicated protocol and effectively demonstrates how any given version of Windows will behave in respect to dataset handling, ram allocation, and cpu usage. In comparison to Unix, It is laughable.

You basically show your ignorance by using that link. That's one of the worst pieces of misinformation out there on how Windows memory management works. This article (http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php), while dated, offers much better insight (and if I recall correctly was one of the early sources for the one you used).

Yes, strongly (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137638). Microsoft has a dismal corporate ethics history of mediocrity and market conquest, evidenced by everything from DRM to uninstalling either Vista or Windows 7.

You have pretty crappy reading comprehension, because my last post in that thread criticizes the stupid patent they resubmitted. Your ad hominem is duly noted.

Actually I could get technical about Windows' as an atrocious operating system for home use, but why bother when it is such a simple matter to understand. The average Vista installation, even managed, will become almost unusable after a year as a family computer.

Actually, it looks like your "technical" knowledge of Windows as an operating system is based on amateur hobby sites who worry more about a few frames per second in Counterstrike at the cost of security and functionality than they do about end-user overall performance.

SirPhilip

20th March 2009, 01:31 AM

If it runs under 32-bit emulation then it is not a 64-bit program. Right. Whatever the case, 64bit implementation exists to some degree irrespect of the appliaction - or for whatever reason, the project member miststated so, making this thread a mistatement on my part. Next..

The only issue here is that any new allocations will have to be paged to disk due to a lack of memory, incurring a fairly heavy performance penalty. Other than that, no issues, and the system is perfectly usable. Cpu is idle, large amounts of data aren't being moved around or updated. Come on?

SirPhilip

20th March 2009, 01:48 AM

Mostly because it's not a useful test of the RAM. I'm talking around a fundamental point: Windows has a very low ceiling at which it can work with data reliably in applications. It does in fact do this a lot worse than every other operating system. How that works is not interesting outside humor value. Derail and debunk tactics get boring fast..

..than they do about end-user overall performance. End user overall performance is where most Microsoft stereotypes come from. As for Counter Strike, this forum is a respectable alternative - do aim for my head instead of below the belt. Next..

jsiv

20th March 2009, 02:28 AM

Right. Whatever the case, 64bit implementation exists to some degree irrespect of the appliaction - or for whatever reason, the project member miststated so, making this thread a mistatement on my part. Next..
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. 0% of your Firefox is 64-bit. It's just one of the things that shows your lack of understanding.

Cpu is idle, large amounts of data aren't being moved around or updated. Come on?
That makes no difference (provided any buffers you're using don't exceed the available RAM, resulting in paging). You've yet to explain why it should.

GreNME

20th March 2009, 12:37 PM

I'm talking around a fundamental point: Windows has a very low ceiling at which it can work with data reliably in applications. It does in fact do this a lot worse than every other operating system. How that works is not interesting outside humor value. Derail and debunk tactics get boring fast..

You keep asserting this, yet you continue to fail explaining it in any quantifiable manner. As I pointed out, your screenshots are showing that you already are going about your "testing" in the wrong manner, based on woefully inadequate understanding of VMM and overall memory management. When you can back up your assertions with actual data we can move forward in the conversation in an intellectually honest manner. At this point, you have not been intellectually honest because you continually make statements or explanations that belie little or no understanding of the topic you're claiming expertise at.

End user overall performance is where most Microsoft stereotypes come from. As for Counter Strike, this forum is a respectable alternative - do aim for my head instead of below the belt. Next..

You're the one posting links to amateur hobby sites, not me. You still have yet to back up any assertions with actual data.

SirPhilip

21st March 2009, 09:25 PM

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. 0% of your Firefox is 64-bit. It's just one of the things that shows your lack of understanding. Can you explain what the purpose of listing it as a 64bit build then is?

That makes no difference (provided any buffers you're using don't exceed the available RAM, resulting in paging). You've yet to explain why it should. Let's recap.

"Windows can't handle moving a lot of large stuff around at one time, and it's getting worse not better", declares brother Philip, his finger in the air.

"Compared to what, evidence inventor!"

"For a quarter of a hundred years Unix workstations were the guardians of peace and justice throughout the cold war manning missile silos, ensuring stock market traders got hysterical on good faith, allowing the creation of movie visual effects, the storage of enormous, highly secure databases of female photography, and producing your favorite music. Before the bright shiny, colorful times. Before the empire."

"It's completely unproven Windows sucks. Windows is a nice, big operating system with big colorful buttons and lots of helpful features. It's for big people. It reminds me how preschool should have been though", others complain with no frame of reference.

"Simply search your hard drives and watch how unstable Windows becomes. Technically, it should not do this.", I offer airtight protocol, illustrating the whole point. Unfortunately you can't rule out a genius stepping in, and one does, cuing ramdrive, and is perplexed Windows is working semi-briskly.

dtugg

21st March 2009, 09:29 PM

Can you explain what the purpose of listing it as a 64bit build then is?

Show anywhere on Mozilla's official site where they list any browser as a 64bit build. I bet you can't.

GreNME

21st March 2009, 11:54 PM

There seems to be a lot of that going on in a lot of his posts.

jsiv

22nd March 2009, 12:06 PM

Let's recap.
It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who lacks even the most basic understanding of the subject (and who in another thread even claims to have an old Octane with 1.5TB of ram, and also that he has run every 64-bit program out there even though there are thousands of them and he's admitted to not knowing how to tell if a program is 32- or 64-bit anyway.)

The few things you've said that even make any sense at all sound like application-specific problems and performance loss from paging after running out of RAM. Your XP64/2003 screenshot of you searching is without value, and only shows that your machine is using 33% while scanning through tens of thousands of small files. Okay, so?

Even if this had caused problems on your particular setup, it would still be an application issue with Windows Search or Explorer and any extensions (such as for previewing image and media files) it has loaded (which run in the same process as Explorer on older versions and can easily crash it -- a major source of instability in pre-Vista versions.)

If your last paragraph was directed at me, then I have no idea what you're talking about as my example does not use a "ramdrive" (whatever that is) or a page file. I could modify it to move data around, but it wouldn't make any difference provided that any buffers used don't exceed the free amount of physical memory (as I've said before.)

GreNME

22nd March 2009, 01:45 PM

A ramdrive is a little piece of daemon software that treats a certain portion of the free RAM on a system as a hard drive. It has limited usefulness, but was sometimes popular for those trying to squeak a few extra points of performance out of gaming benchmarks.

jsiv

22nd March 2009, 02:11 PM

Yeah, the Amiga had a dynamic RAM disk back in the day that was handy, but I'm not quite sure how it relates to anything in this topic.

GreNME

22nd March 2009, 05:16 PM

It doesn't. It's just another red herring used to avoid admitting that he's not as well-versed in computing and performance as he claims.

SirPhilip

24th March 2009, 04:38 AM

It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who lacks even the most basic understanding. Okay, so? Like that clueless ramdisk attempt to dispute my point (http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-intel-giveth-microsoft-taketh-away.html).

I could modify it to move data around... Free clue: Windows isn't doing much.

SirPhilip

24th March 2009, 05:04 AM

It doesn't. It's just another red herring used to avoid admitting that he's not as well-versed in computing and performance as he claims. Um. The entire operating system goes down like a top heavy skyscraper when shuffling rudimentary complicated datasets. You don't understand what I'm getting at (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/22/193205) because you've never used a proper operating system.

SirPhilip

24th March 2009, 05:13 AM

Show anywhere on Mozilla's official site where they list any browser as a 64bit build. I bet you can't. Shiretoko is a project. Whoever compiled it stating it was a 64bit build or had components was not being honest were they if that's actually the case, is it?

dtugg

24th March 2009, 06:01 AM

Shiretoko is a project. Whoever compiled it stating it was a 64bit build or had components was not being honest were they if that's actually the case, is it?

Or you just have no idea what you are talking about. I think I'll go with that.

The link in your OP to Mozilla's page about Shiretoko says nor did it say anything about it being 64 bit. That's because it isn't. If you got it from there, which I'm sure you did, it is a regular 32 bit browser. You will be able use Flash and any other plugin and it will say "*32" after its name in task manager.

This site (http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download) is not affiliated with Mozilla at all as far as I can tell. I think they just take releases from Mozilla and convert the source code to 64 bit. If you get something from there, which you didn't, it is 64 bit. It will not run Flash or any other 32 bit plugins and will not say "*32" after its name in task manager

Safe-Keeper

24th March 2009, 06:07 AM

Did anyone post that AVGN rant on the 'bit wars' yet (approx. 0:30 on)?

OPI09q_y-k8

SirPhilip

24th March 2009, 07:24 AM

This site (http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefox:Download) is not affiliated with Mozilla at all as far as I can tell. I think they just take releases from Mozilla and convert the source code to 64 bit. If you get something from there, which you didn't, it is 64 bit. It will not run Flash or any other 32 bit plugins and will not say "*32" after its name in task manager Cursory fact checking isn't difficult (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mozilla-Firefox-3-1-Alpha-2-RC-Faster-than-Google-Chrome-93009.shtml). It makes you look constructive also.

"TraceMonkey is only a few months old, (...) which we've built on and enhanced with x86-64 support and other fixes. We've developed TraceMonkey in the open the whole way. And we're as fast as V8 on SunSpider"

The 32bit version is 64bit optimized. This is logical since Flash and other plug-ins lack support. The 64bit project build is also a 32bit application. But you could have used Google, rubbed two braincells together and figured this out yourself, couldn't you.

SirPhilip

24th March 2009, 07:27 AM

Did anyone post that AVGN rant on the 'bit wars' yet (approx. 0:30 on)? No. Probably because it would make absolutely no sense as an analogy.

SirPhilip

24th March 2009, 08:14 AM

One trend I see is hybrid web applications and browsers actually utilizing GPUs. Of course even in 2009, this still would be 10% of the web's focus. And to substantiate this (http://pc.ign.com/articles/965/965535p1.html) fully..

GreNME

24th March 2009, 03:30 PM

Um. The entire operating system goes down like a top heavy skyscraper when shuffling rudimentary complicated datasets. You don't understand what I'm getting at (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/22/193205) because you've never used a proper operating system.

You're really out in left field here, again on your red herring kick. Instead of letting /. think for you, you might do some research into both OSes. You'll find that both have development in the works to scale them into hundreds of cores. On the Linux side they're on the way, and on the Windows side you'll see the first of the changes in Win 7. In the other thread about Win 7 specifically I linked a video to an interview with Russinovich talking about kernel-level changes-- did you ignore that when you were talking your smack over there as well?

On top of that, multiple cores is different than multiple CPUs, and both Windows and Linux have been able to scale above 32 CPUs for a while. With the different bus architecture in the multi-core processors, changes are being made to how the OSes work handling the newer architecture. That's not a problem of scaling, that's a problem of changing the architecture. So, again you're proving you don't understand what you're pointing out and just repeating nonsense you've heard on this or that interweb site.

ETA: And you may want to read the further comments. They even lay more credence to calling your assertions BS.

jsiv

24th March 2009, 05:00 PM

Like that clueless ramdisk attempt to dispute my point (http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-intel-giveth-microsoft-taketh-away.html).
I thought your point was that Windows broke down if applications used more than 70% (or 40% as you claimed earlier) of the RAM, not that modern software uses more resources than old software (duh). This is verifiable wrong, as I've shown.

What your "ramdisk" talk means I have no idea, as you've yet to explain what the hell you're talking about.

Free clue: Windows isn't doing much.
So? I know that what I say in the paragraph you quote is correct, as I've used Windows under those conditions and so have millions of other people. You can keep talking out of your ass all day long, it won't change anything.

Um. The entire operating system goes down like a top heavy skyscraper when shuffling rudimentary complicated datasets. You don't understand what I'm getting at (http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/22/193205) because you've never used a proper operating system.
So now you're linking to an article that points out that Windows and Linux application developers are not very good at writing massively multithreaded software. This is not that unusual in a world dominated by C. The link isn't about the operating systems themselves, which both support SMP just fine (and Windows NT supported it from the very first release).

But what does this have to do with this topic? Nothing, is what. You keep bringing up random crap.

Cursory fact checking isn't difficult (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mozilla-Firefox-3-1-Alpha-2-RC-Faster-than-Google-Chrome-93009.shtml). It makes you look constructive also.

"TraceMonkey is only a few months old, (...) which we've built on and enhanced with x86-64 support and other fixes. We've developed TraceMonkey in the open the whole way. And we're as fast as V8 on SunSpider"
Yes, they optimize their code for AMD64, partly to be ready for the future, and partly because 64-bit Firefox is fairly common on Linux (which actually has a 64-bit Flash Player now, and previously also had a proxy plugin that could communicate with 32-bit plugins from 64-bit Firefox). Windows isn't the only platform Firefox is used on.

The 32bit version is 64bit optimized. This is logical since Flash and other plug-ins lack support. The 64bit project build is also a 32bit application. But you could have used Google, rubbed two braincells together and figured this out yourself, couldn't you.
This part is completely nonsensical and yet again shows your lack of even the most basic understanding of the topic you claim expertise in. If it is a 32-bit application, it is a 32-bit application. It can't be "64-bit optimized" when it isn't a 64-bit application. I would have thought this was beyond obvious. Mozilla only does 32-bit builds of Firefox for Windows, end of story.

Wowbagger

24th March 2009, 05:25 PM

Step 2: Search the entire hard drive. Thumbnails on. This is going to get ugly. Maybe you should acquire some nicer looking photos.

GreNME

24th March 2009, 05:29 PM

Wowbagger's teasing aside...

:p

mhaze

25th March 2009, 01:06 PM

Is Vista 64 twice as bad as Vista 32?

No. You don't understand the fundamental dynamics.

Each doubling of a Microsoft number causes a tenfold decrease in computer reliability offset by a tenfold slowdown thus the net problems encountered per hour of use remains a constant.

It's a beautiful example of symmetry.

SirPhilip

3rd May 2009, 03:34 AM

I thought your point was that Windows broke down if applications used more than 70% (or 40% as you claimed earlier) of the RAM, not that modern software uses more resources than old software (duh). This is verifiable wrong, as I've shown. Which is either a joke or you can't be bothered to read before writing. Windows has a low ceiling applications can work with large clustered amounts of data at once. It is a simple matter to demonstrate this. Search the hard drive. Explorer is integral to the operating system, 64bit, and multi-threaded. It will crash probably in less than a minute.

I know that what I say in the paragraph you quote is correct, as I've used Windows under those conditions and so have millions of other people. Well, what high performance applications do you use? Video editing, compositing, CAD/CAM, audio editing, particle simulation, network rendering? All of these involve editing large clusters of data blocks, typically 300mb on average. In Unix, the limit is essentially capped to your physical RAM. Windows applications can barely work with a fraction of that before becoming completely unstable.

But what does this have to do with this topic? Nothing, is what. You keep bringing up random crap. Like this (http://gear.ign.com/articles/976/976242p1.html)?

SirPhilip

3rd May 2009, 04:22 AM

You're really out in left field here, again on your red herring kick. It is irrelevant if applications cannot handle large, complex blocks of data at once, and adding complexity on top of loose or obsolete code is counterintuitive to parallel processing and multithreading. Microsoft writes 'fixes' and 'enhancements' over the convoluted mess like an exasperated plastic surgeon working on Donatella Versace's face and is marketing this as a streamlined environment for developing a range of quick and dirty high performance software.

SirPhilip

3rd May 2009, 04:51 AM

No. You don't understand the fundamental dynamics.
Each doubling of a Microsoft number causes a tenfold decrease in computer reliability offset by a tenfold slowdown thus the net problems encountered per hour of use remains a constant. It's a beautiful example of symmetry. Which is humorously what Windows 7 does - the same exact thing except with larger overhead optimization. But no matter how many cores or ram present, it is still going to crash when a search involves organizing the same hundreds of small preview files comprising a fraction of that ram inside an application window. Try it between 2000, XP, Vista, and Windows 7!

So, to analogize, you have:

..a 1998 SUV with a 0-60 of 10 seconds, tops at 80mph at 14mpg
..a 2001 SUV that has 8 seconds, tops at 85mph and gets 17mpg.
..A 2007 SUV with a new frame that has 7 seconds, tops at 90mph and gets 14mpg.
..A 2008 SUV with a lighter body that gets 7 seconds, tops at 95mph and gets 15mpg.

jsiv

3rd May 2009, 12:41 PM

Which is either a joke or you can't be bothered to read before writing. Windows has a low ceiling applications can work with large clustered amounts of data at once. It is a simple matter to demonstrate this. Search the hard drive. Explorer is integral to the operating system, 64bit, and multi-threaded. It will crash probably in less than a minute.
I just did an image search in a non-indexed location that found 25,000 images, all displayed as thumbnails. No issues here, and no noticeable impact on the machine at all.

What do you have to say to that?

Like this (http://gear.ign.com/articles/976/976242p1.html)?
Wow, if you run code before the operating system starts on a machine that doesn't have the hardware to verify the integrity of the boot process, then said code has complete control over the machine? Holy crap, what a shock. This is an architectural "weakness," not a Windows issue (although the proof-of-concept code was written for Windows).

Try it between 2000, XP, Vista, and Windows 7!
You keep bundling all versions of Windows together as if there were no differences between them, which is nonsense. There are major differences in both the search service and Explorer from XP to 7.

On XP for instance, shell extensions (which are, amongst other things, responsible for thumbnail previews) run in the Explorer process and can both freeze and crash Explorer if there are any bugs in them (and there often is in the third-party ones). In Vista or 7 this is not an issue, and Explorer will in fact not even freeze while waiting for a drive to become ready (unlike in XP).

I will repeat what I've said before. Most of the complaints you've voiced before in this thread appear to be about third-party software and machines running out of RAM (a 32-bit program can only use 2GB of memory unless it manually allocates and maps pages, something you rarely if ever see) and/or getting hard page faults (which can bring the whole system to a crawl). The discussion is made more difficult because you appear to have a very low level of computer knowledge, and also keep commenting on products (Vista/7) that you appear to not actually have any experience with.

SirPhilip

3rd May 2009, 03:26 PM

I just did an image search in a non-indexed location that found 25,000 images, all displayed as thumbnails. No issues here, and no noticeable impact on the machine at all. What do you have to say to that? Yes, I just did a similar search and got 25,000+ thumbnails. Pretty quick, isn't it? Now just hit search with a variety of data and watch what happens. All applications work with this stability limitation. It is irrelevant to end users for the most part, but very relevant to parallel processing and multithreading, which is where consumer operating systems like Linux, OSX, and Windows 7 are headed. Microsoft won't be able to compensate by reverse engineering an engine to guzzle more gas.

You keep bundling all versions of Windows together as if there were no differences between them, which is nonsense. There are major differences in both the search service and Explorer from XP to 7. You'll see roughly the same data handling across different versions. Microsoft simply optimizes Windows to retain compatibility. Windows 7 apparently has an "XP" mode now, though. All Windows upgrades are 'fast' until lots of stuff exist, then it behaves the same.

I will repeat what I've said before. No. Windows cannot move large blocks of complicated data around, irrespect of physical ram, with any degree of stability. It's simple to demonstrate, it just is starkly noticeable if you use high performance applications, I don't know why you are contesting it though.

jsiv

3rd May 2009, 04:20 PM

Yes, I just did a similar search and got 25,000+ thumbnails. Pretty quick, isn't it? Now just hit search with a variety of data and watch what happens. All applications work with this stability limitation.
Uh, there is no difference for the two apart from what thumbnail handlers (shell extensions) Explorer will load. If Explorer crashes it is likely due to a shell extension. The ones belonging to video decoders tend to be the least stable. This is of course in XP. In Vista/7 the extensions do not run in the Explorer process and cannot crash it.

I still fail to see what on earth this has to do with Windows' memory manager. It's an application issue, or to be more specific most likely an issue with a third-party software.

It is irrelevant to end users for the most part, but very relevant to parallel processing and multithreading, which is where consumer operating systems like Linux, OSX, and Windows 7 are headed. Microsoft won't be able to compensate by reverse engineering an engine to guzzle more gas.
Huh? What on earth does this have to do with you claiming your Explorer crashes when you search? Nothing, is what. But while we're on the subject, the reason parallel programming is a challenge on platforms like Windows (or Linux for that matter) is because application development tends to be focused around C rather than higher level languages designed with parallelism in mind. This has little to do with the OS itself.

It's cute that you bring up OS X though, an OS that has in no way proven itself to scale better or do threading better than Windows. In fact, OS X doesn't even run on any hardware that can be considered high end!

You'll see roughly the same data handling across different versions. Microsoft simply optimizes Windows to retain compatibility. Windows 7 apparently has an "XP" mode now, though. All Windows upgrades are 'fast' until lots of stuff exist, then it behaves the same.
"XP Mode" is a neatly packaged optional download consisting of Virtual PC and a licensed copy of XP SP3, nothing more. The rest of this paragraph is just nonsense.

No. Windows cannot move large blocks of complicated data around, irrespect of physical ram, with any degree of stability. It's simple to demonstrate, it just is starkly noticeable if you use high performance applications, I don't know why you are contesting it though.
Blah blah. You keep claiming this despite the fact that I know for a fact from personal experience that you are wrong (as does most of the world).

You can't even seem to decide on what the issue is. The thread has been all over the place, from claims that a 32-bit version of Firefox is really 64-bit, to claims that Windows breaks down if you allocate more than 70% (or whatever, it has been refuted anyway) of the system RAM, to claims that Windows just has "poor data handling" in general (a claim that is so vague and meaningless that it can't even really be discussed).

In reality most of your claimed problems can likely be attributed to poor quality third party software, as has been explained so many times before. The fact that 32-bit programs (likely most of the software you run, but who knows, since you didn't even know how to tell) only have a 2GB address space in which to fit all their data probably doesn't help either.

SirPhilip

3rd May 2009, 06:38 PM

Uh, there is no difference for the two apart from what thumbnail handlers (shell extensions) Explorer will load. If Explorer crashes it is likely due to a shell extension. The ones belonging to video decoders tend to be the least stable. This is of course in XP. In Vista/7 the extensions do not run in the Explorer process and cannot crash it. This doesn't explain why anybody reading this can easily crash Windows in under a minute listing numerous different files despite a fraction of the ram being used, nor does it explain why this same instability is consistently observed across the most integrated and expensive software available on Windows, regardless of hardware or updates, that likewise do the same thing, and doesn't behave this way on other platforms. In other words, this logically suggests it is inherent to the operating system.

Do you think production companies use Linux exclusively for render farms and OSX is the platform of choice for high definition video editing for anything other than practical performance?

amb

4th May 2009, 06:07 AM

I've just downloaded IE 8. Any comments? It seems to take a bit longer to load a page from the forum, but once it loads it, a response seems a lot faster than 7.
What about Google Chrome? Any comments?

Recently an update for servive pack 3 was sent via automatic updates, after instaling it my pooter refused to re-boot. I had to use restore. My pooter is around 3 years old running AMD Athlon 64, 2.0 Ghz. What's the problem? Thank you in advance guys.

[PS] Not sure this is the right thread.

jsiv

4th May 2009, 10:03 AM

This doesn't explain why anybody reading this can easily crash Windows in under a minute listing numerous different files despite a fraction of the ram being used, nor does it explain why this same instability is consistently observed across the most integrated and expensive software available on Windows, regardless of hardware or updates, that likewise do the same thing, and doesn't behave this way on other platforms. In other words, this logically suggests it is inherent to the operating system.
The problem with this claim is that it just isn't true.

I haven't even been able to reproduce your Explorer problems (presumably because they are caused by something else you have installed) that don't even have any sort of connection with the other things you talk about in the quoted paragraph!

Do you think production companies use Linux exclusively for render farms

Linux is used because it is free and easily customizable, not much else. I even agree with the choice, there's little point in spending big money on Windows licenses for machines that are just going to be running a single custom application.

and OSX is the platform of choice for high definition video editing for anything other than practical performance?
While I don't accept the claim and suspect that the majority of video-related work is in fact done on Windows, OS X's "popularity" is mostly a fashion thing rather than anything technical.

GreNME

5th May 2009, 08:01 AM

This doesn't explain why anybody reading this can easily crash Windows in under a minute listing numerous different files despite a fraction of the ram being used, nor does it explain why this same instability is consistently observed across the most integrated and expensive software available on Windows, regardless of hardware or updates, that likewise do the same thing, and doesn't behave this way on other platforms. In other words, this logically suggests it is inherent to the operating system.

Do you think production companies use Linux exclusively for render farms and OSX is the platform of choice for high definition video editing for anything other than practical performance?

If only you could make an argument that wasn't full of BS and fanboy nonsense, it might be interesting to have a discussion with you on the technical merits of a given operating system. As far as the post of yours in the quote, jsiv pretty much covered it.

When you can find a way to come up with reproducible results, we can continue.

ETA: one thing about what jsiv said-- I doubt it's OS X or Windows that most of the video work is done. The breakdown as far as I know (from highest to lowest) is 1. Linux, 2. Windows, 3. OS X. The first because of licensing and the ability to turn boxes into one-task editing stations, the second because of the array of (industry standard) CAD and framework software available, and the last because it can do some of the first and some of the second.

PhreePhly

9th May 2009, 11:35 PM

If only you could make an argument that wasn't full of BS and fanboy nonsense, it might be interesting to have a discussion with you on the technical merits of a given operating system. As far as the post of yours in the quote, jsiv pretty much covered it.

When you can find a way to come up with reproducible results, we can continue.

ETA: one thing about what jsiv said-- I doubt it's OS X or Windows that most of the video work is done. The breakdown as far as I know (from highest to lowest) is 1. Linux, 2. Windows, 3. OS X. The first because of licensing and the ability to turn boxes into one-task editing stations, the second because of the array of (industry standard) CAD and framework software available, and the last because it can do some of the first and some of the second.

Agreed. However, I doubt Linux is used much in the video editing world. It is definitely a player in rendering farms. But for video editing it is Apple and Windows. Final Cut Pro and Media Composer are probably the two biggest in video editing. FCP is Mac only, but media composer(by AVID) is windows and Mac, and I would assume the expandability of the PC world would make that a PC preference.

PhreePhly

Alareth

10th May 2009, 12:18 AM

OSX is the platform of choice for high definition video editing for anything other than practical performance?

The prevalence of Macs in video editing was not due to the OS, but because the RISC processors in the pre Intel Macs were better suited to the work.

I was seriously considering a Mac for that reason alone at one time. Now I see no point.

GreNME

10th May 2009, 12:29 AM

Agreed. However, I doubt Linux is used much in the video editing world. It is definitely a player in rendering farms. But for video editing it is Apple and Windows. Final Cut Pro and Media Composer are probably the two biggest in video editing. FCP is Mac only, but media composer(by AVID) is windows and Mac, and I would assume the expandability of the PC world would make that a PC preference.

PhreePhly

Yes, I should have qualified that the large bulk of Linux machines are doing the rendering. However, Maya runs on Linux nowadays, and when it comes to using computer effects or animation you can usually bet that Maya or a similar software has been employed to some extent.

GreNME

10th May 2009, 12:34 AM

The prevalence of Macs in video editing was not due to the OS, but because the RISC processors in the pre Intel Macs were better suited to the work.

I was seriously considering a Mac for that reason alone at one time. Now I see no point.

That became a null concept about a decade ago. AMD began integrating RISC architecture in their CPU design either near the end of the 1990's or ealier this decade (though I think it was the 90's). Now, several generations later, pretty much any x86 CPU you get is going to have hybrid underpinnings from both the older x86 architecture and the RISC architecture.

Despite the RDF from the Apple camps, the whole RISC argument became a non-issue.

Alareth

10th May 2009, 10:34 AM

That became a null concept about a decade ago. AMD began integrating RISC architecture in their CPU design either near the end of the 1990's or ealier this decade (though I think it was the 90's). Now, several generations later, pretty much any x86 CPU you get is going to have hybrid underpinnings from both the older x86 architecture and the RISC architecture.

Despite the RDF from the Apple camps, the whole RISC argument became a non-issue.

All of this is true now, but initially the Mac's established themselves for this reason.

After that it was simple inertia. The people in the industry had learned the software and Mac way of doing things so they continued using them.

Today Mac and PC are on equal footing hardware wise. There just isn't a compelling reason to jump ship from the established tools of the trade if that is what you are experienced with.

technoextreme

10th May 2009, 11:12 AM

Which is humorously what Windows 7 does - the same exact thing except with larger overhead optimization. But no matter how many cores or ram present, it is still going to crash when a search involves organizing the same hundreds of small preview files comprising a fraction of that ram inside an application window. Try it between 2000, XP, Vista, and Windows 7!

So, to analogize, you have:

..a 1998 SUV with a 0-60 of 10 seconds, tops at 80mph at 14mpg
..a 2001 SUV that has 8 seconds, tops at 85mph and gets 17mpg.
..A 2007 SUV with a new frame that has 7 seconds, tops at 90mph and gets 14mpg.
..A 2008 SUV with a lighter body that gets 7 seconds, tops at 95mph and gets 15mpg.
I (for reasons that I shall not go into) managed to have Windows find every single file in the hard drive without it crashing. So I in fact call ********.