RE: 64 bit Windows...

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Walden H. Leverich
> 
> I know what I think everytime I read a statement that's along the
lines
> of "so what, we've had that for xxx years, and you're just getting it
> now." I think, "so what, I've got it now too. What do you have that I
> don't have w/my windows solution." Look, Ford was pumping out Model Ts
> long before Toyota heard of a car, but that doesn't mean that I sould
be
> driving a Model T today. What you provided me yesterday is useless, I
> can get it anywhere, what are you going to provide me tomorrow?

Oh ugh.  I'll respond, primarily because I feel weird if I don't respond
to a Walden Wuvs Windows (C) post <grin>.  But this is a REALLY bad
analogy.  The iSeries is hardly a Model T.  It's a hemi-powered Mustang
convertible.  We had the technology ten years ago, and we've made it
work.

And that's the issue.  Windows is JUST BARELY getting into the world of
64-bit.  And if you remember the pain and suffering of moving from
16-bit to 32-bit, you'd be wildly over-optimistic to expect a smooth
transition here.  I don't expect 64-bit Windows to be fully functional
for years.

When we say we've had a feature for ten years, we mean we've had it,
worked out the kinks, and incorporated it into our base package from the
ground up.

Typically when Windows says they have a feature, it means they've got it
in alpha test stage on a few selected applications, with a nasty
thunking interface for everyone else (those of you old enough to
remember 16-bit Windows probably remember "thunking" - for the
edification of everybody else, that was the official name for using
16-bit pointers with a "32-bit" interface).

Joe