Re: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition ---> Delphi 2005 x64 Edition?

From: Bob Dawson (RBDawson_at_prodigy.net)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:37:11 -0600

"Thomas Miller" wrote
>
> I don't. Everyone knows that memory is the fastest way to
> speed up anything.

To the limit of what the programs running actually need. If a program needs
a half meg of data space, then its not going to fun any faster on a machine
with 8gigs on it than it would run on a machine with 1, all else being
equal.

> Any power user will be upgrading to the
> new 64 technology fairly quick. How many power users are
> there, I don't know, but it is significant (not 1% or 2%).

Here, it really doesn't matter. Computers belong to their workstations, not
individuals. Office users get as much machine as they can justify to the
spending authority (which generally means a standard machine).

> chips and more often then not, the very latest chip will be
> 64 bit within 12 months (whether you want it or not).

Not at issue.

> More and more systems are doing multitasking, especially in
> the virus, spyware, firewall arena. Allowing me to run this
> software in the back ground and keep my real programs at the
> same speed is welcome. It effects my typing very little,
> but my emails take several seconds to send now and they use
> to take < 1. It just doesn't waste my time, but it is
> annoying. I would like to see better in place spell and
> grammar checking, but again, that would slow me down. I
> create a lot of PDFs and Zip files, I would like to see
> these faster.

These seem legitimate to me, but merely incremental--no more than one might
expect than when, for instance, moving up from a sub-GHz to a more recent
and faster processor. In sum, if I have a 64bit fleet I'll certainly be
buying 64bit software for it, but I wouldn't start agressively upgrading the
fleet solely to shave a couple of seconds off occasional/intermittant
administrative activities.

> From my software point of view, reports can take much
> longer on a computer that is slower, as it caches and
> crunches the columns. So anyone that runs reports would be
> a candidate for a 64bit computer .

I'd say need better views on the database and to get a good dba
involved--crunching data is the server's job.

> Good questions and anyone that has the real answers are not
> here in this forum. I doubt Borland even knows.

So do I. I do give them credit for having somewhat better data on which to
base their guesses. :-)

> By the
> way, lots of companies are asking the same question on .Net
> and taking a very, very long wait and see approach.

No doubt.

> Bob, to your credit, your arguments are well founded and
> worth replying too. I can't say the same for most people in
> these groups.

Thanks--your answers were interesting as well.

bobD

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 64 bits
    ... think that power users don't need true 64 bit memory yet. ... fast random access in very large data sets, doing it in RAM is far ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • RE: NEED MORE MEMORY THAN EXCEL 2003 HAS FOR LARGE COMPLICATED WORKBO.
    ... Excel 2002 uses around 220MB of memory ... "LIVEWIRE" wrote: ... > AND OTHER SIMILAR ERROR MESSAGES.EVEN EXCEL 2003 WITH IT'S INCREASED MEMORY ... > MICROSOFT NEEDS TO CONSIDER IT'S POWER USERS. ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.crashesgpfs)