RE: 64 bit Windows...

My issue with this text was the apparent implication that Windows was the ONLY 
mainstream operating system.  And I chuckled when I read that that there are NO 
programs available that can fully utilize the "new" 64-bit architecture.  I was 
not pointing out any inaccuracy per se, only contrasting this with our own 
experiences with 64-bit conversion in which every program with observable 
source was automagically converted to the 64-bit architecture.

Often on this list we discuss how to promote the iSeries.  Compared to 
promoting Windows it should be easy.  How many of our companies are completely 
off of WINNT?  How long do you think it's going to take to get converted to 
64-bit Windows?  10 years?  My thought is that the iSeries platform, rather 
than being "legacy" allows you to stay lean and keep up with current 
technologies due to a much faster development cycle.  Does it not seem ironic 
that this "mainstream operating system" is just testing the 64-bit waters 
nearly 10 years after the iSeries?  

Just my 2¢.

Regards,
 
Scott Ingvaldson
iSeries System Administrator
GuideOne Insurance Group

-----Original Message-----
date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:49:32 -0500
from: "Hall, Philip" <phall@xxxxxxxx>
subject: RE: 64 bit Windows...

> For those who haven't seen the article:
> "Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither apparently will be 64-bit 
> computing. But we finally have the second pillar needed to hold up the 
> 64-bit infrastructure: a mainstream operating system.  Microsoft 
> Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (XP64) uses the full power of 
> modern 64-bit processors (the first pillar) and makes that power 
> available to compatible 64-bit programs.  Or it would if there were any."

I can't see anything inaccurate with the above - why is everyone getting their 
knickers in a twist?

The key word in the above text is 'mainstream' - OS/400, Solaris64, Linux64, 
etc, are not what most people would label mainstream. Windows is very much 
mainstream.

--phil