SillyDog701

[Antony]

If you were old enough like me, you might remember Windows 95 days back in 1995. Microsoft and other PC manufacturers were making a huge fuss about the "32-bit" thing back then.

The reality was... It was not really faster (not much if any) to run 32-bit application than 16-bit application. One of the best example was Microsoft's Office 95 (if I remember it correctly).

It is interesting to note that today's computer manufacturers and software makers do not emphasise that much on 64-bit vs 32-bit. Clearly, the advantage of 64-bit in scientific calculation is still significant, but you don't see companies focus on "64-bit" thing that much as 10 years ago.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Mandrake]

This way, you don't need to deal with multiple CDs or a DVD to install the operating system. Furthermore, a free trial of Tiger doesn't exist to begin with, and if it did, its image would be over 2.5GB in size. By comparison, the images for three XP CDs (Home, Pro, and Pro 64) would be less than 2GB. The free trial for XP64 was only 625MB.

Windows Vista will include the 32bit and 64bit versions on a single DVD - you'll be able to choose which to install when you boot from the DVD.

If you were old enough like me, you might remember Windows 95 days back in 1995. Microsoft and other PC manufacturers were making a huge fuss about the "32-bit" thing back then.

The reality was... It was not really faster (not much if any) to run 32-bit application than 16-bit application. One of the best example was Microsoft's Office 95 (if I remember it correctly).

It is interesting to note that today's computer manufacturers and software makers do not emphasise that much on 64-bit vs 32-bit. Clearly, the advantage of 64-bit in scientific calculation is still significant, but you don't see companies focus on "64-bit" thing that much as 10 years ago.

For me the x64 version of XP doesn't need to be a lot faster than the 32bit version. The x64 version does away with a lot of the old compatability junk that was in the 32bit version, and it's also based on the Windows Server 2003 codebase, making it much more secure and stable.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Don_HH2K]

The reality was... It was not really faster (not much if any) to run 32-bit application than 16-bit application. One of the best example was Microsoft's Office 95 (if I remember it correctly).

Try Windows Media Encoder X64 versus Windows Media Encoder X86 on the same machine, on their respective platforms. You'll see the difference.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060519 Minefield/3.0a1

[Pu7o]

6. There's a free trial of Windows XP Pro X64 edition.

What? There's another separate version just for 64-bit?

Well, when Windows XP was originally released, the X64 architecture did not exist yet.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060708 Minefield/3.0a1

[Antony]

If I remember correctly, you had almost everything latest but QuickTime Player.

Technically I did have the latest QuickTime Player installed, except it was through the QuickTime Alternative DirectShow filters rather than the standalone QuickTime Player. In any case, QuickTime has some sort of nasty bug preventing it or QuickTime Alternative from running on X64 machines yet.

So in other words, you would install any updates of OS and latest browsers from Mozilla, but you won't install Apple QuickTime Player.

[sdt=11685]QuickTime 7 can be installed[/sdt] on a 64-bit Windows XP, but you choose not to enjoy industry standard H.264 encoded movies.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/418.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

[Don_HH2K]

QT Alternative 1.71 seems to work fine, so I'll stick with that. I wouldn't uninstall a security fix just to install the full QuickTime Player.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2 x64; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060519 Minefield/3.0a1

[Antony]

I wouldn't uninstall a security fix just to install the full QuickTime Player.

You don't have to uninstall a security fix from Microsoft just to install QuickTime Player, however, it turns out to be Microsoft's way of shutting down other multimedia competitor's software. I believe you would've spent more effort to install software if the product is from Mozilla Foundation/Corporation.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Don_HH2K]

I wouldn't uninstall a security fix just to install the full QuickTime Player.

You don't have to uninstall a security fix from Microsoft just to install QuickTime Player, however, it turns out to be Microsoft's way of shutting down other multimedia competitor's software. I believe you would've spent more effort to install software if the product is from Mozilla Foundation/Corporation.

You're right I'd spend more effort getting an alternative browser onto XP X64, seeing that I wouldn't be able to put up with IE (or IE64) at all, though I'd probably find some other way about it than uninstalling security patches.

QTA's DirectShow codecs work fine, so I don't see what's wrong with using them, and leaving security patches intact, than uninstalling one just to install QuickTime Player.

Furthermore, this isn't Microsoft's way of shutting down competitor's multimedia products. You can easily see that QuickTime Alternative lets the same codecs work around this bug, so all Apple needs to do is implement a similar fix in the official QuickTime Player to the one the folks making QuickTime Alternative have implemented.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Donzilla/1.1 (WML/1.3)

[Antony]

leaving security patches intact, than uninstalling one just to install QuickTime Player.

Obviously, you did not read [sdt=11685]the post[/sdt]. You don't have to uninstall Microsoft's addition that shuts out competitior's products.

In [sdt=11685]that post[/sdt], I pointed out clearly that MS06-015 was the culprit as well as providing a solution without uninstalling MS06-015. Clearly, you chose to miss the second part. Thanks for that, I have one more proof that you would get everything latest you can get hold of, except those from Apple.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Don_HH2K]

But what I don't understand is... why would I use QuickTime 7.0.4 if I can get the codecs included with QuickTime 7.1 in QuickTime Alternative?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Donzilla/1.1 (WML/1.3)

[Antony]

But what I don't understand is... why would I use QuickTime 7.0.4

Thanks for another point on... Must use the latest of whatsoever can get hold of.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

[Don_HH2K]

I honestly don't see what's wrong with that. Especially if it's free.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Donzilla/1.1 (WML/1.3)

[Purple Lizard]

Well I haven't put in anything about my computers in a while and It's changed a bit since last time around.

iMac G3 Indigo (Or Blue to the rest of us)

400 MHz G3 CPU
512 MB RAM
CD ROM (Later Slot Loading type)
6MB (I think) On-Board Graphics
10 GB HDD
Mac OS X 10.3
LAN (although I cant get the damn thing to work)

Testbed PC
Intel P4 2.4 GHz
256 MB RAM
DVD RW
128 MB NVidia GeForce FX Graphics
80 GB HDD
Windows Server 2003

Main Laptop (Acer Extensa 6602 WLMi)
Intel Pentium M 1.73 GHz
512 MB RAM
DVD RW
Graphics? I'm not sure but It's good enough to run Far Cry fairly well so I assume 64 MB+
Wireless Network Built-In
80 GB HDD
Windows XP SP2

Other Laptop (I-Friend NC1224i)
Intel Celeron 1.2 GHz
128 MB RAM
CD ROM
Graphics? Not Much: perhaps 16 MB VRAM?
20 GB HDD
Windows XP
( This is a cheap generic brand laptop that my Dad bought for about £300 he didn't like it and gave it to me and bought one of the Acer laptops like mine for himself)

Yet another laptop (IBM ThinkPad X20)
Intel PIII 600 MHz
128 MB RAM
CD ROM
Graphics: 8MB ATI something
12 GB HDD
Windows 2000 and Win 98

The last Laptop (Compaq Armada 4131T)
Pentium 120 MHz
32 MB RAM
FDD (that doesn't work)
Graphics? I wish!
2.1 GB HDD
Windows 95( But it only boots up if it feels like it!)

Well thats it from me!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-GB; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0

[Antony]

My computers are...

Power Mac G4 dual 1.42GHz, (commonly referred to as FW800 or MDD model)
processor: dual 1.42GHz PowerPC G4
L3 cache: 2MB DDR SRAM per processor
system bus: 167MHz
main memory: 1.75GB PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SDRAM (was 2GB of RAM but 0.25 of RAM was damaged for unknown reason.)
hard drive: 120GB Ultra ATA/100; 7200 rpm and 200GB HDD
SuperDrive
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro with 64MB of DDR SDRAM
Gigabit Ethernet (1000 mbps), AirPort Extreme
two FireWire 400 ports, one FireWire 800 port


PowerBook G4 12-inch,
processor: 1.33GHz PowerPC G4
L2 cache: 512K SRAM
system bus: 167MHz
main memory: 1.25GB PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SDRAM
hard drive: 80GB 5400-rpm Ultra ATA/100
Combo drive
NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5200 with 64MB of DDR SDRAM
Fast Ethernet (100 mbps), AirPort Extreme, Bluetooth
one FireWire 400 port


iMac 24-inch, as mentioned in [sdt=12216]another thread[/sdt].
processor: 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
L2 Cache: 4MB shared
frontside bus: 667MHz
main memory: 2GB PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2 SDRAM
hard drive: 250GB Serial ATA; 7200 rpm
SuperDrive (8x, DL support)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300GT with 128MB GDDR3 SDRAM
Gigabit Ethernet (1000 mbps), AirPort Extreme, Bluetooth
one FireWire 400 port, one FireWire 800 port
Apple Remote
Apple Wireless Keyboard, Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0

[Pu7o]

A small upgrade: My iMac now has 1.5GB of RAM, as opposed to 512MB of RAM, since today I bought a 1GB module. On a side note, the iMac apparently didn't like having two RAM modules, since it kept not recognizing one of them. I eventually got it to work though, which means...



Hopefully, running virtual machines and such will now be more bearable.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061024 BonEcho/2.0 Macfox/0.1.1-beta2