Adobe Flash Player 64 Bit --Knock Knock Wakey Wakey

[MidnightWizard]

Anyone know when Adobe are going to see the 64 bit light and release a player for a 64 bit Browser like Shiretoko.

All these MS App pimps are getting left behind -- running native 32 bit software in emulation and trying to pretend that it is native 64 bit.
In many cases 64 bit app for LINUX before the mickey mouse stuff.

I can't really live without a flash player -- all those UTubes stuff on GE.

MW

 

[Dimpie (COMPUTEK)]

Been waiting on adobe for months myself
They keep saying they're working on it

 

[dequadin]

I don't think they're getting left behind I think it's simple economics.

What's the browser share for all native 64bit browsers combined? Less than 1% I would assume. Porting to 64bit costs money, so is it really worth it for these guys.

This is my problem with 64bit OS's. Gave up on the idea a while ago, hopefully it'll get better. The major OS players need to make a decision and kill 32bit OS's only do I believe will we get widespread 64bit support.

 

[FarligOpptreden]

I think the decision to kill 64bit OSs would rest on the widespread acceptance and availability of 64bit hardware and drivers. 32bit is still pretty much the standard for hardware imho...

 

[dequadin]

I think the decision to kill 64bit OSs would rest on the widespread acceptance and availability of 64bit hardware and drivers. 32bit is still pretty much the standard for hardware imho...

Yes drivers are also a problem. Didn't consider the hardware side of things (apart from the CPU) good point. I guess the OS guys can't kill off 32bit until full hardware support is there. Don't you love these vicious circles....

 

[FarligOpptreden]

As you might've guessed, my post actually referred to killing 32bit OSs, not 64bit... I could go ahead and edit it, but dequadin's quote would still be on the old post. So I'll ad-hoc edit it via this post.

 

[Keeper]

afaik most hardware is 64 bit compliant?

you should only really worry about your CPU and even those are now 64-bit ready.. (maybe not the old dual cores though, not sure)

 

[MidnightWizard]

Wave Riding

I don't think they're getting left behind I think it's simple economics.
What's the browser share for all native 64bit browsers combined? Less than 1% I would assume. Porting to 64bit costs money, so is it really worth it for these guys.
This is my problem with 64bit OS's. Gave up on the idea a while ago, hopefully it'll get better. The major OS players need to make a decision and kill 32bit OS's only do I believe will we get widespread 64bit support.

64 bit is the future -- which is here NOW.

People are going to start finding LINUX more appealing seeing as it is ahead in the 64 bit game -- proper native 64 bit code and applications.

IF Mark Shuttleworth got his developers to build some SERIOUS 64 bit games -- let's see who starts crying first.

What is the point of Windows 7 64 bit -- X64 core 2 CPU's and mega memory when you sit with software limitations

Snow Leopard is going to be 64 bit -- and I guess SOON all of the Apple apps.

On XP 64 bit I am running everything I need ( granted some stuff is running in 32 bit emulation) -- except ADOBE FLASH.

M$ and it's army of pimp app developers are going to have to "catch a wake up" -- especially now that you can run Win 7 X64 NATIVELY on an MPB.


MW

 

[dequadin]

I sympathies with you, I also tried the 64bit route.

It just looks like its going the IPv6 route, that was meant to be the future how many years ago now?

 

[cerebus]

64-bit has to be the future as long as hardware keeps accelerating. It may take another few years but it's completely inexorable. Unless you expect people to be able to get by on 3gb of ram for the next 10 years.

 

[ponder]

64 bit is the future -- which is here NOW.

People are going to start finding LINUX more appealing seeing as it is ahead in the 64 bit game -- proper native 64 bit code and applications.

What is the point of Windows 7 64 bit -- X64 core 2 CPU's and mega memory when you sit with software limitations

I also don't understand why the windows world is so far behind when it comes to 64bit stuff. I run Arch Linux 64bit on my desktop and 99.9% of the apps are 64bit. The ones that aren't are usually non-opensource like skype for example.

Windows has some catchup to do in this department from Win7 64bit experience.

 

[Pyro]

I also don't understand why the windows world is so far behind when it comes to 64bit stuff. I run Arch Linux 64bit on my desktop and 99.9% of the apps are 64bit. The ones that aren't are usually non-opensource like skype for example.

Windows has some catchup to do in this department from Win7 64bit experience.

As long as the 32-bit stuff runs without a hitch, why bother getting 64-bit versions out?

It might not be optimal, but it works.

Interesting to know that you run 1000+ apps on your linux environment.

 

[ponder]

Interesting to know that you run 1000+ apps on your linux environment.

Who the **** said I ran 1000+ apps on my linux desktop?
The entire software repository is compiled in 64bit, which exceeds 1000 apps. You just made yourself look like an idiot!
Never try to step into Sherlock Holmes' shoes as your deductive reasoning sux.

Why should the caveman bothered with making fire....

 

[Pyro]

Who the **** said I ran 1000+ apps on my linux desktop?
The entire software repository is compiled in 64bit, which exceeds 1000 apps. You just made yourself look like an idiot!
Never try to step into Sherlock Holmes' shoes as your deductive reasoning sux.

Why should the caveman bothered with making fire....

No need to get all bitchy about it. You said 99.9% are 64-bit. If you don't run them, what does it matter?

The difference between 32bit and 64bit isn't beneficial for all software, so there's little to no reason for software companies to recompile and retest their software for 64-bit environments if the 32-bit version work 100% under 64-bit versions of windows.

It's not about making fire, it's about not burning out all your wood if all you need is enough to heat a small pot.

Can you think of any reason why a browser would need more than 2GB of memory in foreseeable future?

People start bitching as soon as they suck up more than a few hundred MBs, so how would they start bitching if they even go over the 1GB mark?

I agree that switching over to 64-bit in the long run would make sense, but 32-bit emulation is sufficient for most needs in the interim.

 

[dequadin]

The difference between 32bit and 64bit isn't beneficial for all software, so there's little to no reason for software companies to recompile and retest their software for 64-bit environments if the 32-bit version work 100% under 64-bit versions of windows.

Can you think of any reason why a browser would need more than 2GB of memory in foreseeable future?

I by far an expert on the subject but I think you're missing the point slightly.

Running having 32bit apps run fine under 64bit is not the issue. Because a 64bit OS is optimised for 64bit addressing. So when it has to run under 32bit compatibility mode it's doing a lot of extra work under the hood to get this right. Granted if this performance drag is not noticeable, then what the problem? Well a couple of things come to mind. Firstly it's one of those things that "just isn't right" and gets a decent amount of people upset. Secondly is a blatant abuse of the processing power you have available. What about lower power machines (netbooks etc) where you could possibly notice this? How much of a drag this actually is, I'm not sure....

The whole deal is also not really about assigning large amounts of memory to a single process. Granted there are situations where you would benifit from this. SQL server and gaming are two that come to mind, it's about total system memory, which means less swapping and better performance.

I still maintain my first point, which is until there is an economic reason for software vendors to support native 64bit, we wont see widespread adoption. As for those guys who's software just doesn't work in a 64bit environment, they are the ones who deserve the linching.

 

[Pyro]

I by far an expert on the subject but I think you're missing the point slightly.

Running having 32bit apps run fine under 64bit is not the issue. Because a 64bit OS is optimised for 64bit addressing. So when it has to run under 32bit compatibility mode it's doing a lot of extra work under the hood to get this right. Granted if this performance drag is not noticeable, then what the problem? Well a couple of things come to mind. Firstly it's one of those things that "just isn't right" and gets a decent amount of people upset. Secondly is a blatant abuse of the processing power you have available. What about lower power machines (netbooks etc) where you could possibly notice this? How much of a drag this actually is, I'm not sure....

The whole deal is also not really about assigning large amounts of memory to a single process. Granted there are situations where you would benifit from this. SQL server and gaming are two that come to mind, it's about total system memory, which means less swapping and better performance.

I still maintain my first point, which is until there is an economic reason for software vendors to support native 64bit, we wont see widespread adoption. As for those guys who's software just doesn't work in a 64bit environment, they are the ones who deserve the linching.

I totally get the "just not right" effect. Like I said, it's not the optimal solution. Getting companies that have no financial incentive to re-release their software in 64-bit form is the main problem.

For MS to get people to migrate to 64-bit, they have to get many of these old 32-bit programs running in a 64-bit environment. They can't force the vendors to do this, and they cannot do it themselves, as this is not OSS, and there's a LOT of 'custom' software out there.

For the major software that DOES gain from 64-bit addressing, you will find 64-bit editions.

A browser, and a flash player is not something that really gains from 64-bit addressing, and for that the Windows 'interim' solution is excellent.

As soon as you squash PC with your 32-bit emulated browser, I'd say a 64-bit version becomes important, but until that day it's a want, not a need.