It is 64-bit
-
@too_many_usernames said:
I love how Micrsoft decided to muck up everything with their transition to 64-bit. Putting all old 32-bit code in a place that used to be called "Program Files" suddenly in "Program Files(x86)" and all the 64-bit stuff in "Program Files" is a good one.
I'm not actually sure this was originally Microsoft's decision - Program Files (x86) dates back to Windows NT on Alpha and DEC's !FX32 compatibility layer for running x86 programs on it.
@skotl said:Note the x:</b> too... I have come across machines where the system disk is D: or some other letter (quite why is another WTF) and this is just one more reason why you don't wanna be guessing at "c:\program files"
It's W: for me, due to a quirk when I installed XP x64 way back then.
@Maciejasjmj said:Besides, if you're not using the English version of Windows, your Program Files folder has never been named "Program Files" to begin with. So it's not like it's a new thing.
Not necessarily - it was localized in some languages, but not others (and it hasn't been localized in any language since Vista).
@blakeyrat said:Jesus Christ. If Juniper can write an installer for Network Connect that works on both 32-bit and 64-bit computers from a single EXE, and it installs DRIVERS and other NASTY STUFF, and Juniper's software is COMPLETE AWFUL BULLSHIT IN EVERY OTHER WAY... if they can pull it off, anybody can.
There's just one small problem: MSI (Windows Installer) only supports 2 modes of operation: single architecture or any architecture - you can't make an installer that would work in 32-bit mode on x86 and IA64, but 64-bit mode on x64. NSIS and Inno Setup don't have these limitations, but they don't plug to the Windows Installer framework either.
@cvi said:Resolution: uninstall 64-bit OneNote, install 32-bit Powerpoint and OneNote. Annoying at worst, but still, one wonders what's preventing these being installed side by side...
Or you could've installed 64-bit PowerPoint - the product key is the same for both.
-
Are you trolling or stupid? I can't tell.
@skotl said:
Christ. This forum is supposed to be for software developers yet we have people posting who think that a 64bit application is literally twice the size of a 32bit one because, durr, 64 is twice as big as 32.
I double-effin dare you to quote to me whoever said that. Because nobody said that.
@skotl said:
Even if they were (they're not) the bandwidth and/or disk space is cheap. The shit about a 10GB setup is pure bollocks - what app comes with a 10GB setup? And what media does it ship on? 10,000 floppies?
Anyway, for people not too stupid to read any posts but still interested in debunking the parts of the quoted post that halfway look like facts (kinda, if you squint), 3dsMax, Maya, the Intel Compiler(whatever that is called this week), the usable parts of Adobe CC, Visual Studio all approach ~8GB on one arch. Installing both 32-bit and 64-bit Photoshop, for example, doubles the Photoshop-only parts (executables, libraries n stuff), doubling the size used on your computer. Also 8GB fits on a DL-DVD, which as you may know, was the media used in the last disc generation. I have to admin that I haven't bought any shipping media in the last 2 years, because there is a thing called "the interwebs" or something like that.
@skotl said:
Windows actually does a pretty good job of coping with 32bit and 64bit apps (on a 64bit machine) and it all "just works(tm)". Assuming, of course, that you wizard programmers use a grown-up installer or manage to read the installer API manuals.
The topic was Java however, which does a horrible job of coping with 32-bit and 64-bit apps.
@skotl said:
Anyone who can't figure out how to sort out an installer for their app (and get it under 10GB) is the real WTF
Nobody is talking about apps. We are talking about full blown applications. And just because you never use software to be productive, it doesn't mean that there isn't real-world software out there that has to be huge per definition. Native-Intruments ships their bundle on full 320GB-Hard-Drives.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
Third - why would 64-bit and 32-bit stuff need to be in different places anyway? That is - why would a folder location convention even be established for such a thing? This is arguably the main WTF in my mind.
You know that you can install Java in both 32- and 64-bit flavors on the same PC? Where are you gonna put them? If you say "c:\program files\java32" and "c:\program files\java64" or anything similar, you haven't solved the problem.
64-bit Windows is full of apps where there's 2 versions, like the Data Sources control panel. You can't have two copies of "odbcad32" in the same directory. What's your proposed improved solution?
If you don't understand why MS did what they did (in particular, if you don't understand why 64-bit apps go in c:\windows\system32 and 32-bit ones go in syswow64, you need to find out why it's the way it is before you make any other suggestions/complaints.
-
@FrostCat said:
@too_many_usernames said:
Third - why would 64-bit and 32-bit stuff need to be in different places anyway? That is - why would a folder location convention even be established for such a thing? This is arguably the main WTF in my mind.
You know that you can install Java in both 32- and 64-bit flavors on the same PC? Where are you gonna put them? If you say "c:\program files\java32" and "c:\program files\java64" or anything similar, you haven't solved the problem.
64-bit Windows is full of apps where there's 2 versions, like the Data Sources control panel. You can't have two copies of "odbcad32" in the same directory. What's your proposed improved solution?
If you don't understand why MS did what they did (in particular, if you don't understand why 64-bit apps go in c:\windows\system32 and 32-bit ones go in syswow64, you need to find out why it's the way it is before you make any other suggestions/complaints.
Linux generally has /usr/lib and then either /usr/lib32 or /usr/lib64 based on the distro. There's no /usr/bin32 or /usr/bin64, though. Because programs don't load other programs. They load libraries.
-
@ender said:
Or you could've installed 64-bit PowerPoint - the product key is the same for both.
In this case, I only had (immediate) access to a 32-bit installer. Probably could have chased down a 64-bit version, but that might as well have taken longer than just uninstalling and reinstalling. (Btw, the original OneNote was a stand-alone, so it didn't include any other Office applications.)
Still, the point is that 32 vs 64-bit is not completely transparent even for Microsoft's own software, even if this is perhaps a bit of an edge case.
-
@cvi said:
Still, the point is that 32 vs 64-bit is not completely transparent even for Microsoft's own software, even if this is perhaps a bit of an edge case.
I would say more than and edge case...attempting to install part of a SINGLE integrated suite in different configurations could bring havoc that would be very difficult to deal with...(imagine embedding a excel file in a word document, then getting a single process (starting with 32 bit) to render this...
-
@cvi said:
Still, the point is that 32 vs 64-bit is not completely transparent even for Microsoft's own software, even if this is perhaps a bit of an edge case.
I would say more than and edge case...attempting to install part of a SINGLE integrated suite in different configurations could bring havoc that would be very difficult to deal with...(imagine embedding a excel file in a word document, then getting a single process (starting with 32 bit) to render this...
-
One day, but probably not until you're very old, you're going to look back on all your casual public dismissal of racism and you're going to think "Christ, I'm glad I'm not that asshole any more."
-
@flabdablet said:
One day, but probably not until you're very old, you're going to look back on all your casual public dismissal of racism and you're going to think "Christ, I'm glad I'm not that asshole any more."
You didn't quote anyone, but your "replied to" link goes to one of my posts. I guess it's predictable that you wouldn't understand. But I've never been that asshole. I'm a very different asshole, and I presume I will regret doing some things I do today. But none of it will be for things I didn't do, like dismissing racism.
-
Since it's perfectly obvious that nobody complaining about other people's lack of reading comprehension will have any of their own, let me be perfectly explicit: it's the tags, nuff-nuff. Every time you make some totally-not-amusing-any-more jokey comment about something having nothing to do with racism being racist, you're dismissing racism. That might not be what you're intending to do - I'm perfectly willing to believe that you don't consider yourself to be an asshole - but that's what you're doing all the same.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
Second, if the old "32-bit" way of doing things was "Folder A", it's an idiotic decision to say "going forward, new 64 bit things are in 'Folder A' and we're going to start putting 32 bit things in 'Folder B' " - why would you force old stuff to move, instead of putting new stuff in a new place?
Because it maintains a simple canonical name for the "main" one. Presumably, Microsoft will continue this strategy as architectures change, so we might have ended up with "Program Files (128)", "Program Files (256)", etc. Instead of having ever increasing "version numbers" for a name, they have the "main" one and the exceptions.
That said, it was still bad design. Why should the typical user care about the architecture? Why should "program data" even have a name as far as the typical user is concerned? Windows has a good registry system, a few new keys could configure settings to reveal metadata to interested parties (your boss, etc).
-
The whole idea behind Java is Write Once, Run Everywhere (the so WORE-technology). Why would there be a different installer for 32-bit and 64-bit? It should all be compatible with whatever JVM is installed. Clearly, their one USP can't even be achieved.
-
@flabdablet said:
Every time you make some totally-not-amusing-any-more jokey comment about something having nothing to do with racism being racist, you're dismissing racism. That might not be what you're intending to do - I'm perfectly willing to believe that you don't consider yourself to be an asshole - but that's what you're doing all the same.
I definitely consider myself to be an asshole. But it's not because you misread what I say. It's possible that you don't get it because you aren't American and haven't witnessed the inanity and over use of the racist charge that we've had here.
-
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
Every time you make some totally-not-amusing-any-more jokey comment about something having nothing to do with racism being racist, you're dismissing racism. That might not be what you're intending to do - I'm perfectly willing to believe that you don't consider yourself to be an asshole - but that's what you're doing all the same.
I definitely consider myself to be an asshole. But it's not because you misread what I say. It's possible that you don't get it because you aren't American and haven't witnessed the inanity and over use of the racist charge that we've had here.
Australians don't get racism.
-
@Gurth said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
Besides, if you're not using the English version of Windows, your Program Files folder has never been named "Program Files" to begin with.
Dutch-language Windows 95:
In German installations, it was called "Programme". Which means that eventually you had a "Program Files" folder anyways, for the few applications that used hard-coded locations in their installer.
However, since Windows Vista, this problem was fixed(tm):
Now, the folder is named "Program Files", but the Windows Explorer and all dialogs pretend it's still called "Programme". So let's say you use an application A that needs the path to another application B. Then the configuration screen of application A would show you a select-folder dialog in which you select the installation folder of B, which would be "C:\Programme\ApplicationB". And when you click OK it tells you that this path doesn't exist. Of course, the configuration screen is designed so that you cannot insert the path manually, so the only workaroung is to create a symbolic link which points at Program Files.
And if you think that the developers of application A screwed up (apart from the fact that you cannot enter the path manually), even Windows Explorer didn't get it right in the first years, which means that neither "C:\Programme\ApplicationB" nor "C:\Program Files\ApplicationB" could be entered in the address bar. Instead, you could only enter "C:\Programme" and had to continue by mouse from there.
-
@Zemm said:
Australians don't get racism.
Maybe not, but we're at least as good at it as everybody else.
-
@Zemm said:
Australians don't get racism.
@Zemm said:
Can you think of something that talks, other than a person?
A black man!
...would be an example of a horribly racist punchline.
-
@martijntje said:
The whole idea behind Java is Write Once, Run Everywhere (the so WORE-technology). Why would there be a different installer for 32-bit and 64-bit? It should all be compatible with whatever JVM is installed. Clearly, their one USP can't even be achieved.
The Java part is architecture-independent, but when you're running a Windows service you need an executable. That executable typically loads jvm.dll. If you have a 32-bit executable trying to load a 64-bit jvm.dll, you're going to be a sad panda.
-
This integer width apartheid needs to stop. When is IT Mandela going to stand up? Equal folders for all!
-
@Mcoder said:
@blakeyrat said:
@too_many_usernames said:
As an end user, I should not care if I'm installing or using a 64-bit or 32-bit application! I should not have to do anything special to install a 32-bit versus 64-bit application. The OS should make that transparent to me!
You already don't. It's already transparent.
Funny thing, since there are 64 bits Windows around, I don't remember to have ever installed some piece of software that I didn't have to choose between the 32 or 64 bits versions.
For what software it's transparent, Blakey?
I don't think I've ever been asked which version I'd like to install, except for one-size-fits-all installers. IMHO, those are more trouble than having seperate x86 and x64 installers anyway, so I generally avoid them. In my experience, they all automatically install to the correct directory, whether it's Program Files or Program Files(x86).
As for the question about why there are even seperate folders on x64 systems:
@Maciejasjmj said:
What if you need both the 32-bit and 64-bit version of the application? And other applications on your system depend on one or the other version?
+1
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
What if you need both the 32-bit and 64-bit version of the application? And other applications on your system depend on one or the other version?
I thought we learned the lesson that associating file / path name with a particular attribute (e.g., bit-width, file content type) was a WTF many years ago.
-
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
Every time you make some totally-not-amusing-any-more jokey comment about something having nothing to do with racism being racist, you're dismissing racism. That might not be what you're intending to do - I'm perfectly willing to believe that you don't consider yourself to be an asshole - but that's what you're doing all the same.
I definitely consider myself to be an asshole. But it's not because you misread what I say. It's possible that you don't get it because you aren't American and haven't witnessed the inanity and over use of the racist charge that we've had here.
You know the best part about boomzilla's signature? Like a broken clock that's right twice a day, every so often he really does post something racist through sheer myopic ignorance of the consequences or meaning of the things he posts. He won't recognize when he does it, of course. Which ends up being an illustration in itself of why he was wrong in the first place.
For example. Someone who isn't a racist dick would simply apologize and admit that a joke that belittles the very real difficult that some people in American society have with fitting in and dealing with subtle (and not so subtle) harrasment based on ethnicity without seeming to be overly sensitive, but also not sacrificing their personal dignity has run just a little too long. But no. He can't simply be a decent person. He has to be a dick about it, and keep maintaining that just because HE doesn't see what the big deal is about the shit he says, nobody ever can.
-
@Snooder said:
For example. Someone who isn't a racist dick would simply apologize and admit that a joke that belittles the very real difficult that some people in American society have with fitting in and dealing with subtle (and not so subtle) harrasment based on ethnicity without seeming to be overly sensitive, but also not sacrificing their personal dignity has run just a little too long.
That sentence ran a little too long. It shouldn't surprise anyone that you continue to not get it. Once again, it's the people making ridiculous accusations of racism who are belittling actual racism. This is an awareness campaign. The ignorant responses I've gotten on this forum show me that it's desperately needed.
@Snooder said:
He has to be a dick about it, and keep maintaining that just because HE doesn't see what the big deal is about the shit he says, nobody ever can.
Now I really have no idea what you're talking about. You should read what I write and not get the Cliff's Notes versions from your shoulder aliens.
-
@boomzilla said:
... it's the people making ridiculous accusations of racism who are belittling actual racism.
I have to agree with boomzilla on this one. I've met people who blame every bad thing that happens to them on racism. In their eyes, nothing is ever their fault, and there is nothing that they can ever do to get ahead. They will apply for a job that they are completely unqualified for, and then cry racisim when they don't get the position. Nevermind that the person doing the interviews has no idea they are african american, or hispanic, or native american, or whatever, since they never made it past the resume stage. Hell, for all they know, whoever cut them is also an african american, or hispanic, or native american, or whatever. No, they will say it was racism that kept them from getting the job, no matter how ridiculous the claim is.
I'm not saying racism isn't ever an issue, and I'm sure boomzilla isn't saying that either. We're just saying that people often claim racism in situations where it couldn't possibly apply.
-
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
This is an awareness campaign.
Your communication is a little lacking.
That's how awareness campaigns work, though.
-
@abarker said:
I have to agree with boomzilla on this one. I've met people who blame every bad thing that happens to them on racism. In their eyes, nothing is ever their fault, and there is nothing that they can ever do to get ahead.
That is a bad thing, too, but it's not what I was really aiming at. It's more the sort of stuff that leads people to believe that wanting lower taxes or saying "Chicago" is racist.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
He has to be a dick about it, and keep maintaining that just because HE doesn't see what the big deal is about the shit he says, nobody ever can.
Now I really have no idea what you're talking about. You should read what I write and not get the Cliff's Notes versions from your shoulder aliens.
Again, this is the sort of behavior I'm talking about. Let me try to be a little bit more clear. Your point is to make a pointed bit of satire about how everyone in America is constantly misconstruing things that aren't actually racist as things that are. Fine, up to a point that's a perfectly valid rhetorical point.
The part where the satire fails is when someone points out that the joke is bothersome and demeaning to people with real problems and you just shrug it off and go "WTF are you talking about? You must be crazy and listening to shoulder aliens." See that right there? The part where you pretend that people who aren't like you don't have feelings or the right to feel bothered by the things you do? That's not appropriate behavior. And it's a very real problem. It's a real problem when the only woman in a group of men says "Hey guys, that joke isn't cool. It bothers me" and the rest just blithely go on with "What, what are you talking about? Get your panties out of a wad." It's a real problem when the black guy in the office is sitting around listening to you talk about how Barack Obama is only in office due to affirmative action, or that Charlie Strong isn't qualified to be a head football coach, or that the "real" racism in America is because too many people whine about race oh so very much. And he can't respond. Not because you're right; but because you are loud, opinionated, and a major dick and trying to engage you in conversation would just lead to you calling him a race-baiting whiner.
Yes, those are real problems. It's not shoulder aliens. It's not crazy talk. It's real people with real problems, and you keep trying to pretend that just because those aren't YOUR problems, they don't exist.
-
@Snooder said:
The part where the satire fails is when someone points out that the joke is bothersome and demeaning to people with real problems and you just shrug it off and go "WTF are you talking about? You must be crazy and listening to shoulder aliens." See that right there? The part where you pretend that people who aren't like you don't have feelings or the right to feel bothered by the things you do? That's not appropriate behavior. And it's a very real problem.
OK. I'll make sure to consult you in the future to see if I'm being offensive.
-
Does anyone else find it suspicious that bridget99 and Snooder came back on the same weekend and both started posting unintelligible flaming?
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
The part where the satire fails is when someone points out that the joke is bothersome and demeaning to people with real problems and you just shrug it off and go "WTF are you talking about? You must be crazy and listening to shoulder aliens." See that right there? The part where you pretend that people who aren't like you don't have feelings or the right to feel bothered by the things you do? That's not appropriate behavior. And it's a very real problem.
OK. I'll make sure to consult you in the future to see if I'm being offensive.
You are being sarcastic here as if what I'm asking for is impossible or unreasonable. It's not. Nobody is asking you to have magical powers of foresight. What we are asking is that if someone points out that you are being a dick, to not continue to be said dick. Or at the very, very least; consider that they might have a point, and really think about what you are doing and saying and how it might affect them.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
Second, if the old "32-bit" way of doing things was "Folder A", it's an idiotic decision to say "going forward, new 64 bit things are in 'Folder A' and we're going to start putting 32 bit things in 'Folder B' " - why would you force old stuff to move, instead of putting new stuff in a new place?
I think the idea behind this was something along the lines of: If you are running a 64 bit OS then 64 bit programs are not "new stuff" they are THE stuff and so they go in Program Files. 32 bit programs are the oddballs so they go in a special location that designates them as being 32 bit.And somebody at Microsoft probably thought that people might want to install both 32 and 64 bit versions of a program at the same time. I don't know why you would do that, since 64 bit Windows can run 32 bit programs just fine. If you have a 64 bit version, use that, if there is only a 32 bit version, use that and put it in Program Files and don't muck things up with an extra directory that you don't really need.
A few years ago if you installed the 64 bit version of Photoshop it also automatically installed the 32 version. I think that only lasted for one version and then they realized that it was stupid.
-
@Snooder said:
You are being sarcastic here as if what I'm asking for is impossible or unreasonable. It's not. Nobody is asking you to have magical powers of foresight. What we are asking is that if someone points out that you are being a dick, to not continue to be said dick. Or at the very, very least; consider that they might have a point, and really think about what you are doing and saying and how it might affect them.
Yes, exactly. You seem perfectly skilled to be a dick-o-meter.
OK, yes, enough sarcasm. It's a good thing to respect the feelings of others. It's a dick move to get offended by or to deny obvious things to try to silence people from saying things you disagree with. I believe you that someone might get offended at the suggestion that Obama's race helped get him elected. I'm offended that such people would call me racist for noticing and not denouncing that idea. There's a reason why politics and religion aren't considered good topics for polite conversation. Your attempt to turn this place polite is delusional.
-
@El_Heffe said:
32 bit programs are the oddballs so they go in a special location that designates them as being 32 bit.
The name "Program Files (x86)" dates back to Windows NT 4 on Alpha - there was an x86 emulator available for it that let you run x86 Windows programs, and those were by default installed to Program Files (x86).
@El_Heffe said:I don't know why you would do that, since 64 bit Windows can run 32 bit programs just fine.
Possibly because 64-bit programs can't use 32-bit plugins (which is why 32-bit Office is still the default, and you're warned about incompatibility when you go install 64-bit Office).
-
-
@too_many_usernames said:
@ender said:
Species-ist would be more accurate.Possibly because 64-bit programs can't use 32-bit plugins
Why, are they racist?
-
@dkf said:
@too_many_usernames said:
@ender said:
Species-ist would be more accurate.Possibly because 64-bit programs can't use 32-bit plugins
Why, are they racist?
The files in C:\Program Files (MLP)\ self-identify as ponies.
-
@El_Heffe said:
And somebody at Microsoft probably thought that people might want to install both 32 and 64 bit versions of a program at the same time. I don't know why you would do that, since 64 bit Windows can run 32 bit programs just fine.
Well, here's an example: Java. Most people, even on 64-bit Windows, use a 32-bit browser. Java applets, then, would need to use the 32-bit JVM.
Ah, but then you wind up installing Minecraft and learn that it likes a 64-bit JVM if possible, and now you need two versions of Java at the same time.
-
@FrostCat said:
@El_Heffe said:
And somebody at Microsoft probably thought that people might want to install both 32 and 64 bit versions of a program at the same time. I don't know why you would do that, since 64 bit Windows can run 32 bit programs just fine.
Well, here's an example: Java. Most people, even on 64-bit Windows, use a 32-bit browser. Java applets, then, would need to use the 32-bit JVM.
Ah, but then you wind up installing Minecraft and learn that it likes a 64-bit JVM if possible, and now you need two versions of Java at the same time.
And if Java was designed by slightly saner people, what you'd do is install the 32 bit java libraries and the 64 bit java libraries and executables. I can run a 32 bit program on my computer as long as I have the libraries it needs. Why (Oracle) Java only lets you install one set of its libraries, I will never know.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
Second, if the old "32-bit" way of doing things was "Folder A", it's an idiotic decision to say "going forward, new 64 bit things are in 'Folder A' and we're going to start putting 32 bit things in 'Folder B' " - why would you force old stuff to move, instead of putting new stuff in a new place?
It's rather that the old system was 32-bit and used 'A' as the only (hence, default) location, the new system has 64-bit as a default and still uses 'A' as the standard location, with a new location 'B' for non-default, 32-bit applications. So, sensibly, the default stuff always goes in the same place.
Would you have been happier with 'Program Files' and 'Program Files (Legacy)' instead?
-
@grkvlt said:
@too_many_usernames said:
Second, if the old "32-bit" way of doing things was "Folder A", it's an idiotic decision to say "going forward, new 64 bit things are in 'Folder A' and we're going to start putting 32 bit things in 'Folder B' " - why would you force old stuff to move, instead of putting new stuff in a new place?
It's rather that the old system was 32-bit and used 'A' as the only (hence, default) location, the new system has 64-bit as a default and still uses 'A' as the standard location, with a new location 'B' for non-default, 32-bit applications. So, sensibly, the default stuff always goes in the same place.
Would you have been happier with 'Program Files' and 'Program Files (Legacy)' instead?
What if you had a system that stored data files, and it used a directory named "Data Files". Then, they added a new kind of data. They moved the old data files to "Data Files (Data)" and put the new files in "Data Files".
Keep in mind that x86_64 is still x86.
-
@boomzilla said:
It's a dick move to get offended by or to deny obvious things to try to silence people from saying things you disagree with.
Not trying to silence you, dude. Trying to let you know that your megaphone is turned up to 11 when you'd be less unintelligible at 5.
-
@Ben L. said:
And if Java was designed by slightly saner people, what you'd do is install the 32 bit java libraries and the 64 bit java libraries and executables. I can run a 32 bit program on my computer as long as I have the libraries it needs. Why (Oracle) Java only lets you install one set of its libraries, I will never know.
[ The 32-bit Java libraries ] and [ the 64-bit Java libraries and executables ]... either I'm parsing that incorrectly or you live in a world where 64-bit executables can link against/load 32-bit libraries.
-
@Ben L. said:
@FrostCat said:
@El_Heffe said:
And somebody at Microsoft probably thought that people might want to install both 32 and 64 bit versions of a program at the same time. I don't know why you would do that, since 64 bit Windows can run 32 bit programs just fine.
Well, here's an example: Java. Most people, even on 64-bit Windows, use a 32-bit browser. Java applets, then, would need to use the 32-bit JVM.
Ah, but then you wind up installing Minecraft and learn that it likes a 64-bit JVM if possible, and now you need two versions of Java at the same time.
And if Java was designed by slightly saner people, what you'd do is install the 32 bit java libraries and the 64 bit java libraries and executables. I can run a 32 bit program on my computer as long as I have the libraries it needs. Why (Oracle) Java only lets you install one set of its libraries, I will never know.
What are you talking about? I've got 32-bit and 64-bit Java on my system, and two sets of libraries. Furthermore, you can't run 32-bit libraries from 64-bit executables.
-
@heterodox said:
@Ben L. said:
And if Java was designed by slightly saner people, what you'd do is install the 32 bit java libraries and the 64 bit java libraries and executables. I can run a 32 bit program on my computer as long as I have the libraries it needs. Why (Oracle) Java only lets you install one set of its libraries, I will never know.
[ The 32-bit Java libraries ] and [ the 64-bit Java libraries and executables ]... either I'm parsing that incorrectly or you live in a world where 64-bit executables can link against/load 32-bit libraries.
I'm not. That's why you need both sets of libraries. But in a sane world, you only need one java.exe, and the browser can load Java through the libraries.Unfortunately, we don't live in that sane world.
-
@too_many_usernames said:
My company is suffering right now through Windows 64 bit transition issues... yes we're a little late to the party, but we develop embedded code, and some of those development tools do not like 64-bit... they're just now getting transitioned over.
These days, most budget PCs come with 8GB of RAM which wouldn't be addressable if not for 64-bit. This transition happened ages ago and it wasn't like Microsoft championed it; The entire industry did from chip manufacturers, to OS manufacturers, to software vendors who were tired of their users complaining their software was crashing on big render jobs. You probably should have languished for so long somehow expecting the industry not to move forward. And if you really need to mix your environments, there's always emulation.
@too_many_usernames said:
It's also fun now that we have to support not only a dozen versions of third party tools, but now both their 32- and 64-bit versions!
If you consider that to be overwhelming, don't get into web development. Have you seen how many permutations of Android and it's crappy browser there are? Not to mention a bunch of desktop browsers across multiple operating systems with multiple screen sizes and DPIs. The fact that you have a clear list of build targets makes your job pretty easy to automate a build and even automate a testing harness.
@too_many_usernames said:
Yes, part of the WTF is we don't just say "sorry we no longer support third party tools from 7 years ago."
You summed it up nicely there. Web developers used to complain endlessly about IE6, yet they continued to bend over backwards to support it for ages. Your company should have a clear roadmap for their end users defining when old software and systems cease being supported. Then you can tell any stragglers that if they want to continue using the old stuff, they can't expect to get new features or support if something breaks.
-
@Ben L. said:
But in a sane world, you only need one java.exe, and the browser can load Java through the libraries.
In a sane world, the browser can't load Java.
-
@Ben L. said:
But in a sane world, you only need one java.exe, and the browser can load Java through the libraries.
Unfortunately, we don't live in that sane world.
The browser does load Java through the libraries. Were you under the impression that the browser launches javaw.exe as a child process?
Granted that the plugin for IE (and I think Firefox) is typically delivered with a full JRE, but I don't see why you'd care about that as we all know you use Chrome.
@dkf said:
In a sane world, the browser can't load Java.
True story though.
-
@boomzilla said:
I believe you that someone might get offended at the suggestion that Obama's race helped get him elected. I'm offended that such people would call me racist for noticing and not denouncing that idea.
Yes, it turns out the concept that when 2.4% of the people who have held a position are not white, jumping to the conclusion that the only reason that that 2.4% got chosen for the position was their race is in fact increadibly racist.
-
Arguing with boomzilla about racism is about as productive as arguing with Blakeyrat about git, for much the same reason. Neither is the slightest bit willing to acknowledge any actual fact if doing so might risk their needing to alter a treasured personal opinion. Sad, but there it is.
