Board index » delphi » Re: .NET or Win64?

Re: .NET or Win64?


2005-05-09 06:59:42 AM
delphi187
Quote

This is true, but I see it in a similar way that Win32 has "killed" Win16.
Sure, Win16 apps still run, but all applications on Windows now-adays are
in
Win32. I see this happening with Win64 in a few years, but I *don't* see
this happening with .NET...

The transition to Win64 will take much longer than the transition to Win32.
The visible benefits for the general user going to Win32 from Win16 where
increased stability (with Win95!) and greatly improved UI. The move from
Win32 to Win64 has neither of these therefore the transition will take
longer. I'd expect "at least" 3 years before there are more Win64
installations than Win32. The average user wont upgrade because you tell
them with some apps they might have better performance.
Craig, www.h3k.biz
 
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

On 05/07/05, Erwien Saputra said:
Quote
Just want to clarify, are you saying that with the same 64-bit
processor, a Win32 application will run faster on Win64 OS/WOW32
rather than Win32 OS?
In limited testing, that is been my observation, but it is also been
reported elsewhere -- can not recall where just now, but it was probably
one of: arstechnica.com, tomshardware.com, or anandtech.com. Or it may
have been somewhere else altogether <g>.
--
Bill
--------
" They (American universities) do indeed cultivate diversity in race,
skin color, ethnicity, {*word*225} preference. In everything but thought."
-- George Will
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Craig writes:
Quote
The average user wont
upgrade because you tell them with some apps they might have better
performance.
Imagine if you tell them "with .NET, some apps might have worse
performance". <g>
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Quote
The transition to Win64 will take much longer than the transition to
Win32.
The visible benefits for the general user going to Win32 from Win16 where
increased stability (with Win95!) and greatly improved UI. The move from
Win32 to Win64 has neither of these therefore the transition will take
longer. I'd expect "at least" 3 years before there are more Win64
installations than Win32. The average user wont upgrade because you tell
them with some apps they might have better performance.

Interesting analogy. You don't get either of those transitioning to DotNet
either. Not sure what that means...
-BKN
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Quote
>The transition to Win64 will take much longer than the transition to
>Win32.
>The visible benefits for the general user going to Win32 from Win16
where
>increased stability (with Win95!) and greatly improved UI. The move from
>Win32 to Win64 has neither of these therefore the transition will take
>longer. I'd expect "at least" 3 years before there are more Win64
>installations than Win32. The average user wont upgrade because you tell
>them with some apps they might have better performance.
>

Interesting analogy. You don't get either of those transitioning to DotNet
either. Not sure what that means...
But isn't the point more that the user doesn't care what framework the
developer uses? They care how the app works.
I think it would be more developers and corporate systems administrators
(tying down security in the framework used by the next generation of MS
OS's) that drive the move to .net or Native Win64.
And who is leading the developers? MS. And it looks like Borland is
following.
My 2c.
Lauchlan M
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Quote

But isn't the point more that the user doesn't care what framework the
developer uses? They care how the app works.

Exactly. No user 'upgrades' to .NET. From a users point of view it is just
another requirement like having IE6 installed can be a requirement.
Quote
I think it would be more developers and corporate systems administrators
(tying down security in the framework used by the next generation of MS
OS's) that drive the move to .net or Native Win64.

And who is leading the developers? MS. And it looks like Borland is
following.

You are correct, and both MS and Borland are more focused on 'selling' .NET
at the moment rather than Win64 as the next generation platform so most
developers will follow. Also keep in mind the developing native Win64 apps
using MS development tools, who have the market lead, is no where near as
easy as developing for .NET.
I definitely think Win64 has a place in the future, but it is not going to
be any revolution that some think. (Feel free to quote me on this in 3 years
if I am wrong).
Craig.
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Craig writes:
Quote
Exactly. No user 'upgrades' to .NET. From a users point of view it is
just another requirement like having IE6 installed can be a
requirement.
Except that it isn't really a requirement, because for each .NET
application you can find an alternative native application that does
the same job (with the advantage that it doesn't impose the user to
install the .NET Framework).
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Quote
>Exactly. No user 'upgrades' to .NET. From a users point of view it is
>just another requirement like having IE6 installed can be a
>requirement.

Except that it isn't really a requirement, because for each .NET
application you can find an alternative native application that does
the same job (with the advantage that it doesn't impose the user to
install the .NET Framework).
No, because
(i) you choose that app that you want to use, for business reasons. eg, you
go to their website, it looks really good, you click the 'download a trial
button'.
(ii) the trial says 'prerequisites required. Please visit
www.Microsoft.com/downloaddotnet or something like that, and install the
required prerequisites'.
You want to run the trial, so you do it.
If the product is pitched well, at step (ii), the user doesn't go 'what? I
need to install some rperequisites? Forget this app. I will search more for a
competitor that doesn't use this prerequisite.
No, the user installs the prerequisites, evaluates he app, and _then_ makes
up his or her mind about it.
Lauchlan M
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Lauchlan M writes:
Quote
No, the user installs the prerequisites, evaluates he app, and then
makes up his or her mind about it.
I think you are being too optimistic here. It has to be a really killer
application to survive to a such an annoying prerrequisite as .NET.
Otherwise, most apps today would be for .NET.
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Quote
>No, the user installs the prerequisites, evaluates he app, and then
>makes up his or her mind about it.

I think you are being too optimistic here. It has to be a really killer
application to survive to a such an annoying prerrequisite as .NET.
Otherwise, most apps today would be for .NET.
ok, we disagree then about the mindset of the 'average' user right now,
today. I think if the user has dial-up, they won't download it, but if they
are on broadband, they probably won't care and will 'just do it'.
I don't know the breakdown for how many have broadband and how many are on
dial-up.
But, I suggest to you that in any case in a few years time when the desktop
version of Longhorn is shipping and widely used, the point will be moot
because the user will already have .net on their desktop. At that point, if
not today, it will certainly not be 'user demand' driving .net. The user
won't care either way, as long as it works without problems and gives them
the finctionality they need.
Lauchan Mackinnon
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Quote
Aren't they only about 20MB each (in an install of an OS that might
take up GB's)?
Nope, the installers are 20 MB, the framework files take hundreds
of MB (just check the "magic" .Net folders with a DOS command or
3rd-party utility).
Eric
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Quote
Just want to clarify, are you saying that with the same 64-bit
processor, a Win32 application will run faster on Win64 OS/WOW32 rather
than Win32 OS?
The O/S being native 64 bit, runs slightly faster, so if you are
making relatively few calls to slow O/S functions, rather than
making lots of calls to super-fast O/S functions, you're bound
to recoup the WOW overhead and run a little faster.
The 32bit apps also benefit indirectly from the 64bit memory model
through improved overall O/S memory and swapping management.
Eric
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Eric Grange wrote in <427f184e$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>:
Quote
The O/S being native 64 bit, runs slightly faster
Yeah, one thing to keep in mind here is that, while Windows for x86 may
be compiled with who knows what version of Visual C/C++ and with who
knows what optimizations available to it, Windows for x64 is being
compiled with an all-new compiler which likely has all the
optimizations enabled. There's bound to be an improvement from that
alone.
Will
--
Want native support in Delphi for AMD64/EM64T? Vote here--
qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

Quote
>Aren't they only about 20MB each (in an install of an OS that might
>take up GB's)?

Nope, the installers are 20 MB, the framework files take hundreds
of MB (just check the "magic" .Net folders with a DOS command or
3rd-party utility).
Ouch. that is bad.
Just to clarify, you (i) download the 20MB installer and (ii) it unpacks to
300 MB (seems unlikely) or (iii) it downloads more files for you?
Where would I look for these .net files/folders using Windows Explorer?
Lauchlan M
 

Re: .NET or Win64?

">So, I think Win64 is more important than DotNet."
Actually Win64 shows another advantage of DotNet over Win32. The JIT
compiler ( of a future dotnet framework ) will take your same dotnet
assembly and output native code optimized for your 64 bit processor.