Re: [libreoffice-users] Why is there no Windows 64 bit build?

Le 2011-03-09 17:09, webmaster for Kracked Press Productions a écrit :
> On 03/09/2011 04:20 PM, rabbit.editor wrote:
> > Why is there no Windows 64-bit build?
> > That's it. just a simple quesion.
> In my opinion . . . .
> For the longest time, even though there was a 64-bit version of 
> Windows, computer venders would not install the 64-bit version on 
> their 64-bit products due to driver issues. ....
>
> Next, how many users of Windows currently have the 64-bit version? 
> Most users of Vista I know of do not have the 64-bit version. My Dell 
> is 64-bit processor but they did not offer the Vista 64-bit version 
> for the laptop. Win 7? How many users have Win 7's 64-bit version? 
> More than Vista I assume. XP? No 64-bit version for that either as far 
> as I could find when I bought that laptop. And yes, a lot of people 
> still use XP SP2 or SP3.

There was a 64-bit XP, but I heard it's fairly buggy and it is 
relatively useless because it lacks drivers. From what I can see, the 
transition occurred during Vista's "reign". Case in point, we bought 7 
basic laptop computers with Vista ; the first three ones came with a 
32-bit system and the latter four with a 64-bit system. Maybe all 
companies didn't transition at the same time, but I would say the shift 
occurred about 3-4 years ago. As for Windows 7, I think the only reason 
to get a 32-bit system is if one upgrades a 32-bit Vista computer.
> That is the real issue for wanting a 64-bit version of the package, 
> right? Having a package rewritten to taking advantage of the 64-bit's 
> assets to make the package run faster.
>
> Then we need to ask again, how many of the Windows users need a 64-bit 
> version when the 32-bit version works fine? 5%, 10%, 30%??? ...

That's the real question. I'm not an expert, but I'm not a total newbie 
either. From what I read, the 64-bit architecture offers a few "advantages":
1. possibility to open a partition larger than 4 Gb (in the case of 
Excel, it translates in files larger than 2 Gb);
2. faster processing in crunching-intensive applications;
3. maybe higher limits in number size and a few details like that.

For point 1, my largest Excel or Calc file is a whopper 20 Mb, and 
considering the time it takes to open or save, I would NOT recommend 
using Calc for a 1 Gb file, even less for a 2 or 3 Gb one. As for point 
2, the speed of Office-type applications is limited by the speed of 
keyboard entry or display operations rather than by number-crunching 
speed. Unless one has huge macro functions, the speed gain in Writer or 
Calc would be minimal.

> Another question. Can the 64-bit XP [if there is one], 64-bit Vista, 
> and the 64-bit Win 7 use the same 64-bit package? Of would you need to 
> make one for XP, another one for Vista, and a third for Win 7. ...

There probably are minor issues to consider, but a well-designed 64-bit 
version would work on all 64-bit systems (and definitely on Vista and 
Windows 7), just like the well-designed 32-bit version works on XP, 
Vista and 7.


--

Michel Gagnon – michel@mgagnon.net <mailto:michel@mgagnon.net>
Montréal (Québec, Canada) – mgagnon.net <http://mgagnon.net>


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***