Poor 64-Bit Dimdows...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
surprised to learn that Microsoft itself does not offer a 64-bit version of
Silverlight!
Richard
So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
> yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?
For a start, time_t only seems to be 64 bits on 64-bit systems. So if you
want to cope in a standard way with dates outside about 1901 .. 2038, you
will need to go 64 bits.
impossible
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:hhhn0m$4r7$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
If only there were a demonstrable need to obsess about the "Y2038 bug" as
you're developing browser plugins in 2010. What's the matter, Larry? Can't
find real work to do?
Richard
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:16:03 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>> So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
>> yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?
>
> install the 32bit libraries needed to run 32bit programs.
But the operating system comes with full support for 32 bit apps, so
again, what is the problem?
Perhaps in several versions time if they drop 32 bit like they dropped
16 bit going into vista, then it will be a problem, but for now till
browsers need 64 I have no issues with the lack of 64 bit plugins.
impossible
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01...@carnations.com...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:16:03 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>> yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?
>
> environment and not have to
> install the 32bit libraries needed to run 32bit programs.
>
>
Perhaps. But Larry D'Loserites like you are all about the mystical powers of
vaporware. To prove your point you'd actually have to demonstrate that some
really existing 64-bit applications is better/performs better than its
32-bit counterpart. How about it, ConMan. Can you?
Enkidu
things up significantly.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
impossible
"Enkidu" <enkid...@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:4b3d94b0$1...@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>>
>> "Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2010.01...@carnations.com...
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:16:03 +1300, Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>> So? With there being no demonstable need for a browser to be 64 bits
>>>> yet, why waste time making a plugin for browsers that are not used?
>>>
>>> Perhaps the demonstrable need is so that you can install an all 64bit
>>> environment and not have to
>>> install the 32bit libraries needed to run 32bit programs.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps. But Larry D'Loserites like you are all about the mystical powers
>> of vaporware. To prove your point you'd actually have to demonstrate that
>> some really existing 64-bit applications is better/performs better than
>> its 32-bit counterpart. How about it, ConMan. Can you?
> >
> It also gives access to memory greater than 4GB. That can speed some
> things up significantly.
>
Greater memory access is the **only** advantage today of a 64-bit os. For
that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to Windows 7 64-bit with
12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my 32-bit desktop applications --
including IE8 and Flash Player -- will all perform better. Come the day
someone creates better performing 64-bit tools, that's where I'll turn, but
Larry D'Loseite troll-shite doesn't move me in the least.
Richard
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:28:20 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps the demonstrable need is so that you can install an all 64bit
>>> environment and not have to install the 32bit libraries needed to run
>>> 32bit programs.
>> But the operating system comes with full support for 32 bit apps, so
>> again, what is the problem?
>
Windows comes with them, so it is a non issue for internet explorer and
silverlight on that platform.
Enkidu
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:20:53 -0600, impossible wrote:
>
>> Perhaps. But Larry D'Loserites like you are all about the mystical
>> powers of vaporware. To prove your point you'd actually have to
>> demonstrate that some really existing 64-bit applications is
>> better/performs better than its 32-bit counterpart. How about it,
>> ConMan. Can you?
>
> their 32bit counterparts - the 64bit OS uses hardware with greater
> addressing capability, and 64bit applications therefore have that
> advantage. I can't think of any other advantage that users could have
> by using 64bit hardware.
>
Potentially the data path could be 64bits which would double the
peripheral data transfer rates. However it is my understanding that
present '64 bit' motherboards have a 32 bit wide data path due to chip
limitations. I think I read that somewhere.
Enkidu
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:31 -0600, impossible wrote:
>
>> Greater memory access is the **only** advantage today of a 64-bit
>> os. For that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to
>> Windows 7 64-bit with 12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my
>> 32-bit desktop applications -- including IE8 and Flash Player --
>> will all perform better.
>
> manipulate up to 4gb of data at one time.
>
Well, they can't *manipulate* it, they can only *address* it, that is,
use bits of it. But the underlying 64 bit OS can address more, so it can
keep more that 4GB of 32 bit apps in RAM, thereby making it a lot faster
to switch. A 32 bit OS can keep less than 4GB of apps in RAM. However I
think that more than 4GB of 32 bit apps is a bit of a stretch, I'll give
you that.
Richard
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:01:58 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>>> But NOT if you chose not to install the 32bit compatible libraries.
>> Windows comes with them, so it is a non issue for internet explorer and
>> silverlight on that platform.
>
Then dont use internet explorer on windows.
Why does it matter if you install them or not?
Richard
> how many desktop applications do you need to have running at the same time that would cause you to
> require 12gb of RAM installed just to use your desktop computer normally?
Adobe products will use whatever you have and then some
impossible
> In case you hadn't noticed it, but 32bit applications can only manipulate
> up to 4gb of data at one time.
>
You mean **each** 32-bit application can only manipulate up to 4gb of data
at one time. More than enough.
> Altho' why anyone would need 12gb of RAM on a desktop computer being used
> to access the www
> with a Microsoft browser I really don't know - unless the actual real
> performance of that system is so
> appallingly poor that it really needs all that RAM just to work normally.!
>
LOL. In Larry D'Loser land, I understand you just play with browsers and
email cleints. In the real world, the Windows desktop supports a full range
of professional quality applications that benefit greatly from increased
memory.
> Oh, and BTW...[plonk - again!]
Whatever. Plonkers always ...[plonk - again!]. Just don't expect me to give
you a pass on your usual Larry D'Loserite drivel.
impossible
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01...@carnations.com...
>
>> powers of vaporware. To prove your point you'd actually have to
>> demonstrate that some really existing 64-bit applications is
>> better/performs better than its 32-bit counterpart. How about it,
>> ConMan. Can you?
>
> 32bit counterparts - the 64bit OS
> uses hardware with greater addressing capability, and 64bit applications
> therefore have that
> advantage. I can't think of any other advantage that users could have by
> using 64bit hardware.
>
> _capacity_ advantage.
>
>
That's a "no" then. Just as I thought, ConMan.
impossible
"Richard" <ri...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hhkqaa$q75$1...@news.albasani.net...
Because ConMan is trolling.
John Little
> I fail to see why 64bit applications should perform "better" than their 32bit counterparts...
(We often get this 64 vs. 32 bit argument in nz.comp, and I've not
seen this point raised here, so I'm leaping in with it somewhat
arbitrarily here.)
Using a large address space, much larger than the hardware addressable
memory, can be used for different programming paradigms. An early
such approach was mapping files (f.ex. mmap) instead of the open,
read, write stuff, and another doing communication that way. Later,
one maps resources on the internet into one's address space. Let the
OS worry about protocols and APIs and security, just do stuff with
memory, or some abstraction like objects. Or, imagine a functional,
lazy evaluation view of the universe.
It's not necessarily a better way, and it can break the Unix
everything-is-a-file concept. But, for some applications, it can be
vastly simplifying, and for some IO bound tasks getting the virtual
memory system to do all the IO makes them much faster.
I'm sure there's much more eloquent and useful descriptions of these
ideas around, this is off the top of my head. I suppose only big
servers use these approaches presently, and I suppose not many of them
use 32 bit addressing.
Regards, John
Enkidu
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:26:20 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Carnations wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:31 -0600, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greater memory access is the **only** advantage today of a 64-bit os.
>>>> For that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to Windows 7
>>>> 64-bit with 12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my 32-bit desktop
>>>> applications -- including IE8 and Flash Player -- will all perform
>>>> better.
>>> In case you hadn't noticed it, but 32bit applications can only
>>> manipulate up to 4gb of data at one time.
>>>
>> Well, they can't *manipulate* it, they can only *address* it, that is,
>> use bits of it. But the underlying 64 bit OS can address more, so it can
>> keep more that 4GB of 32 bit apps in RAM, thereby making it a lot faster
>> to switch. A 32 bit OS can keep less than 4GB of apps in RAM. However I
>> think that more than 4GB of 32 bit apps is a bit of a stretch, I'll give
>> you that.
>
> require 12gb of RAM installed just to use your desktop computer normally?
>
his 12GB RAM. XP (32 bit) will happily run a few like IE and Flash
Player in a couple of GB without swapping.
Enkidu
> Do Windows admins not have the option of not installing those?
>
You don't have an option of not installing 32 bit libraries on 64 bit Linux.
Enkidu
Enkidu
> x 12m long then you'll certainly need all the RAM available. but
> you'd be unlikely to be running anything else on that computer at the
> time, and you'd be unlikely to be doing that on a home computer -
> more likely on a work computer, and more likely on a Mac.
>
A Mac would not get remotely near that size of image. When we were
processing posters on Macs we used to have to chop down the images into
sizes that the Macs could handle (on the PCs) and glue them together
when the Macs produced the print readies.
Enkidu
were doing something like distilling a big Adobe PDF, you'd process that
4GB sequentially. In the days of memory measured in MB, that was the
reason for the development of the swap process. Programs and data chunks
could be swapped out if they weren't being used at the moment and
brought in efficiently when they were needed.
Where you win with 32 bit apps and 64 bit OS is in the OS's ability to
keep more apps in RAM. With a 32 bit OS, the maximum available RAM is
around 2.7GB (with 4GB installed) and that means that 2 - 3 big apps
could be kept in memory. With a 64 bit OS and a bigger memory much more
could be held in RAM, and would therefore be faster.
>
>> Altho' why anyone would need 12gb of RAM on a desktop computer
>> being used to access the www with a Microsoft browser I really
>> don't know - unless the actual real performance of that system is
>> so appallingly poor that it really needs all that RAM just to work
>> normally.!
>>
>
> LOL. In Larry D'Loser land, I understand you just play with browsers
> and email cleints. In the real world, the Windows desktop supports a
> full range of professional quality applications that benefit greatly
> from increased memory.
>
That's what the OP wanted 12GB of RAM for. "IE8 and Flash Player" is
what he said.
impossible
Exactly.
>>> Altho' why anyone would need 12gb of RAM on a desktop computer
>>> being used to access the www with a Microsoft browser I really
>>> don't know - unless the actual real performance of that system is
>>> so appallingly poor that it really needs all that RAM just to work
>>> normally.!
>>>
>>
>> LOL. In Larry D'Loser land, I understand you just play with browsers
>> and email cleints. In the real world, the Windows desktop supports a
>> full range of professional quality applications that benefit greatly
>> from increased memory.
>>
> That's what the OP wanted 12GB of RAM for. "IE8 and Flash Player" is
> what he said.
>
No, the OP is Larry D'Loser, and he was just trolling . I'm the one
installing 12Gb of ram -- to run SAS, Stata, SPSS, Microsoft Office, Adobe
Acrobat, Omnipage Pro, Maple, ArcGIS, etc -- + IE8 and Flash Player, among
other things. That's why I'm moving to 64-bit Windows 7.
For anyone running just a browser and email client, 2Gb of ram is plenty and
a 64-bit os is simply ridiculous.
Enkidu
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:48:08 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> You don't have an option of not installing 32 bit libraries on 64 bit
>> Linux.
>
>
> I don't have any 32bit applications installed.
>
If you have a 64 bit Linux you will find two directories in root called
/lib and /lib32 (I believe that RedHat might do it the other way around,
having /lib and /lib64). If you use the normal installer you will get
both sets of libraries. Are you sure that all your apps are 64 bit? Have
you checked?
Enkidu
packages always benefit from buckets of RAM. But the original comment
you made specifically mentioned IE8 and Flash and not those memory
gobblers, which gave me the impression of a more usual setup.
Enkidu
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:17:51 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> If you have a 64 bit Linux you will find two directories in root
>> called /lib and /lib32 (I believe that RedHat might do it the other
>> way around, having /lib and /lib64). If you use the normal
>> installer you will get both sets of libraries. Are you sure that
>> all your apps are 64 bit? Have you checked?
>
> the browser is 64bit 'coz that is the version that I installed.
>
> Ah, now that I think about it, OOo is a 32bit program.
>
My Ubuntu OOo is 64 bit:
cliffp@bumblebee:~$ file /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable,
x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.15, stripped
>
> SuSE has /lib and /lib64.
>
It would do. It's an inferior ripoff of RedHat and uses 'rpm' and the RH
file system layout.
Enkidu
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:32:35 +0000, Carnations wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:17:51 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> /lib and /lib32 (I believe that RedHat might do it the other way
>>> around, having /lib and /lib64). If you use the normal installer you
>>> will get both sets of libraries. Are you sure that all your apps are 64
>>> bit? Have you checked?
>> browser is 64bit 'coz that is the version that I installed.
>>
>> Ah, now that I think about it, OOo is a 32bit program.
>>
>
>
OK. I haven't been able to find a 32bit executable on my Ubuntu, but I'm
sure there are some.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Windows comes with [32-bit compatible libraries], so it is a non issue for
> internet explorer and silverlight on that platform.
There is still the issue that you need to run two different versions of
Internet Explorer on 64-bit Dimdows, one compatible with 32-bit plugins and
one compatible with 64-bit.
I gather this also applies to Dimdows Media Player, because there are 32-bit
codecs and 64-bit ones.
impossible
"Carnations" <Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01...@carnations.com...
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:17:51 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> /lib and /lib32 (I believe that RedHat might do it the other way
>>> around, having /lib and /lib64). If you use the normal installer you
>>> will get both sets of libraries. Are you sure that all your apps are 64
>>> bit? Have you checked?
>>
>> browser is 64bit 'coz that is the version that I installed.
>>
>> Ah, now that I think about it, OOo is a 32bit program.
>>
>> SuSE has /lib and /lib64.
>
> But actually, now that I've checked even OOo is a 64bit version - I've
> just checked the installer.
>
Dead wrong as usual, ConMan. OO is a 32-bit application that is compatible
with 64-bit platforms.
geoff
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:31 -0600, impossible wrote:
>
>> For that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to Windows 7
>> 64-bit with 12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my 32-bit desktop
>> applications -- including IE8 and Flash Player -- will all perform
>> better.
>
> manipulate up to 4gb of data at one time.
>
> used to access the www
> with a Microsoft browser I really don't know - unless the actual real
> performance of that system is so appallingly poor that it really
> needs all that RAM just to work normally.!
>
Maybe they also want to edit video or photos, or run huge audio samplers.
geoff
geoff
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:28:20 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps the demonstrable need is so that you can install an all
>>> 64bit environment and not have to install the 32bit libraries
>>> needed to run 32bit programs.
>>
>> again, what is the problem?
>
> But NOT if you chose not to install the 32bit compatible libraries.
Good reason to accpt defaults eh ?
geoff
geoff
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:48:08 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>> Linux.
>
>
> I don't have any 32bit applications installed.
You may just want to one day - you never know.
geoff
geoff
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:01:58 +1300, Richard wrote:
>
>>
>> and silverlight on that platform.
>
Fortunately only a very few people are that obtuse.
geoff
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> But actually, now that I've checked even OOo is a 64bit version - I've
> just checked the installer.
I had to thread my way through a few levels of shell scripts to get to the
actual binaries, but here are the results on my 64-bit Debian system:
ldo@theon:~> file /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.18, stripped
ldo@theon:~> file /usr/lib/openoffice/program/oosplash.bin
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/oosplash.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.18, stripped
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
ec6e-4065-908...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, John Little wrote:
> Using a large address space, much larger than the hardware addressable
> memory, can be used for different programming paradigms.
I thought it was a missed opportunity that AMD didn’t reserve the bottom 3
bits of every address for a bit offset into the byte. It makes certain kinds
of manipulations so much easier if bit-aligned pointers can be treated the
same as byte-aligned ones.
> It's not necessarily a better way, and it can break the Unix
> everything-is-a-file concept.
It also doesn’t handle the concept of unbounded data streams very well.
Enkidu
the Windows version is restricted to 32 bit.
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable,
x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.15, stripped
Enkidu
and Flash in the original post.
impossible
LOL. OpenOffice is a a 32-bit application that has been ported to 64-bit
Linux. Functionally, there is no difference whatsoever -- other than the
fact that the 64-bit version consumes more memory. If Microsoft pulled a
stunt like that, they'd be justifiably ridiculed. But ok, you've got me on a
technicality -- mea culpa.
impossible
> geoff wrote:
>> Carnations wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:31 -0600, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greater memory access is the **only** advantage today of a 64-bit os.
>>>> For that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to Windows 7
>>>> 64-bit with 12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my 32-bit desktop
>>>> applications -- including IE8 and Flash Player -- will all perform
>>>> in the least.
>>>
>>> manipulate up to 4gb of data at one time.
>>>
>>> Altho' why anyone would need 12gb of RAM on a desktop computer being
>>> used to access the www
>>> with a Microsoft browser I really don't know - unless the actual real
>>> performance of that system is so appallingly poor that it really
>>> needs all that RAM just to work normally.!
>>>
>>
>> Maybe they also want to edit video or photos, or run huge audio samplers.
>>
> The poster who mentioned 12GB RAM does do that, but mentioned only IE8 and
> Flash in the original post.
>
Who are you lawyering for? As you can clearly see above, the original post
mentioned "my 32-bit desktop applications -- including IE8 and Flash
Player". And as I've clearly explained to you when you first raised this
issue, "I'm the one installing 12Gb of ram -- to run SAS, Stata, SPSS,
Microsoft Office, Adobe Acrobat, Omnipage Pro, Maple, ArcGIS, etc -- + IE8
and Flash Player, among other things. That's why I'm moving to 64-bit
Windows 7." So why continue to recite a falsehood?
Enkidu
version does, though I'd not swear to it that it wasn't some other
change in the app that allowed it to more easily edit large files. I'd
hope that they would have improved it somewhat to use the 64 bit
abilities of the OS and chip.
impossible
I haven't seen any evidence that the 64-bit version of OO is any
improvement. Even OpenOffice.org doesn't make that claim. As I said, the
**only** advantage in running a 64-bit os is the increase in memory access.
Whether you're taking Linux or Windows -- application developers have shown
us nothing so far to get excited about. Hopefully that will chnage over
time.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> But actually, now that I've checked even OOo is a 64bit version - I've
> just checked the installer.
I just tried date functions and date formatting in 64-bit OOo. e.g. in cell
A1, the formula “=DATEVALUE("1-Mar-2040")” evaluates to 51196. And in A2,
the formula “=A1+29” formatted as a date shows as “Friday, 30 March 2040”.
geoff
Bet that gave you a stiffy.
geoff
Nathan Mercer
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <hhkdks$78...@news.albasani.net>, Richard wrote:
>
> > Windows comes with [32-bit compatible libraries], so it is a non issue for
> > internet explorer and silverlight on that platform.
>
> There is still the issue that you need to run two different versions of
> Internet Explorer on 64-bit Dimdows, one compatible with 32-bit plugins and
> one compatible with 64-bit.
Why is it that you need to run 64 bit Internet Explorer?
was there a reason?
impossible
"Sweetpea" <Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01...@Sweetpea.com...
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:43:22 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>> Why is it that you need to run 64 bit Internet Explorer?
>>
>> was there a reason?
>
> onto a 64bit computer with a 64bit
> OS?
>
And here's the better question yet, SweetPee/CupaPee: How many sock puppets
does it take for a Larry D'Loserite to ConTheNation?
geoff
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:43:22 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
>>
>> was there a reason?
>
> stuff onto a 64bit computer with a 64bit OS?
Because the application you may want to run is only available as 32 bit -
and you also have some 64 bit apps so you MUST have the 64-bit OS ?
> Or is Microsoft's "64bit" version of MS WindowsNT merely some 64bit
> stuff bolted on top of a 32bit OS?
>
> That could explain the hideous performance of MS Windows Vista
> Ultimate and all its various progressively more crippled options -
> that and the stupid Digital Restrictions Management that MS built
> into the kernel!
Nothing to do with the OS bit depth archotecture.
geoff
Enkidu
Nik Coughlin
> impossible wrote:
>>
>> "Sweetpea" <Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2010.01...@Sweetpea.com...
>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:43:22 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is it that you need to run 64 bit Internet Explorer?
>>>>
>>>> was there a reason?
>>>
>>> Here's the better question: Why should you need to install 32bit
>>> stuff onto a 64bit computer with a 64bit
>>> OS?
>>>
>>
>> And here's the better question yet, SweetPee/CupaPee: How many sock
>> puppets does it take for a Larry D'Loserite to ConTheNation?
> >
> I'm almost sure it's Lennier (aka Carnations).
A fair assumption given that the sig is the same. I think he(?) has used
Sweetpea in the past too.
impossible
"Sweetpea" <Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01...@Sweetpea.com...
>
>>> Here's the better question: Why should you need to install 32bit stuff
>>> onto a 64bit computer with a 64bit OS?
>>
>> Because the application you may want to run is only available as 32 bit
>
>
Why do you need to run a 64-bit browser? Oh, wait...under another nym you
ducked that question already.Didn't you SweetPee? Or is it ConTheNations?
But try again -- Give me one good reason why anyone today would go out of
their way to replace a 32-bit browseer with a 64-bit browser?
impossible
"Sweetpea" <Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01...@Sweetpea.com...
>
>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> "Sweetpea" <Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2010.01...@Sweetpea.com...
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:43:22 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why is it that you need to run 64 bit Internet Explorer?
>>>>>
>>>>> was there a reason?
>>>>
>>>> Here's the better question: Why should you need to install 32bit stuff
>>>> onto a 64bit computer with a 64bit
>>>> OS?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And here's the better question yet, SweetPee/CupaPee: How many sock
>>> puppets does it take for a Larry D'Loserite to ConTheNation?
>> >
>> I'm almost sure it's Lennier (aka Carnations).
>
>
> Almost all the headers are identical to before, and I'm still using the
> same xface that I've been using for
> years. :)
>
Nym-shifting for over a decade! And darn proud of it, too, aren't you,
SweetPee/CupaPee? Oh, wait, no....you set the no-archive bit to try to hide
your tracks. How's that working for you?
Enkidu
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:22:21 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>
>>> "Sweetpea" <Heri...@Sweetpea.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2010.01...@Sweetpea.com...
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:43:22 -0800, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why is it that you need to run 64 bit Internet Explorer?
>>>>>
>>>>> was there a reason?
>>>> Here's the better question: Why should you need to install 32bit stuff
>>>> onto a 64bit computer with a 64bit
>>>> OS?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And here's the better question yet, SweetPee/CupaPee: How many sock
>>> puppets does it take for a Larry D'Loserite to ConTheNation?
>> >
>> I'm almost sure it's Lennier (aka Carnations).
>
>
> Almost all the headers are identical to before, and I'm still using the same xface that I've been using for
> years. :)
>
the style of general pigheadedness.