| Author | Messages | |
neilruston
Posts:149
 | | 09/24/2008 1:29 PM |
| In the same way that a car manufacturer will only want to produce one
spec per car model [i.e. the 2008 spec and NOT the 2007 spec], Intel,
MS, AMD etc etc have the same market forces applied to them.
Why maintain 32 and 64 bit code and support when you don't need / have
to?
We all managed the move from 16-bit to 32-bit, now we're getting ready
to make the next jump (OS, software and hardware).
Make sense to me, regardless of features.
:-)
neil
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Shell
Sent: 10 September 2008 16:20
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
To clarify my point. I do not think it is a wise move to force people to
x64 for R2 unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Meaning... look
at this cool new feature that only works in x64 (carrot approach) as
opposed to "look at all the cool stuff you won't be able to use unless
you use x64, even though there is no reason why it won't work on x86
other than we REALLY want you to move to x64" (the stick approach.)
The way I read your post you are providing reasons to use x64 which an
entirely useful and valid debate, but not directly related to the point
I am making.
What I am after here, is does anyone know of any features that in R2
that "actually" require x64?
However, I did respond inline:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Michael B. Smith
<michael@theessentialexchange.com> wrote:
Drop support for /3gb, /userva/, and /pae comes to mind.
BS: I wasn't aware there was an urgent need for this. Point
being these are solutions to current problems that go away when you
install x64 regardless of R2. Removing these provides no value to the
user.
I know that lots of performance issues in exchange went away by
going to x64, and I know of a couple that go away in AD (loading the
full dit into memory pops to mind).
BS: This only applies if you have large DIT. Statistically
speaking that is a very small portion of AD population, but it does
increase performance significantly (this is why I moved all my DCs to
x64.)
If css/pss no longer has to take those kinds of calls...it
represents a savings to MSFT and a reduction in problems for the client.
BS: This benefits MS not the user and making people switch to x64 to
your (MS) benefit is not a valid business reason.
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com
<http://theessentialexchange.com/>
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:43 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
To get people out onto the dance floor....
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Shell
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:37 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
That is how I perceive it working as well... but I am curious
what the value will be.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:08 AM, joe <listmail@joeware.net>
wrote:
It can be the same code base, they just don't release the x86
bins...
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Brandon Shell
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 10:03 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
Perhaps I am off base, and yes I clearly see the "server"
reference, but it is my understanding the idea was to keep 2k8 and Vista
on the same base. I wonder what impact , if any, this will have on
Vista.
I suppose we should take it to mean that the R2 extensions will
only be available for x64.
p.s. I realize there is a difference between RX and SPX.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Coleman, Hunter
<hcoleman@mt.gov> wrote:
"Microsoft announced several years ago that Windows Server 2008
would be the last server OS available in 32-bit. (And let's not overlook
the word "server" there! I'm not talking about the desktop.) Windows
Server 2008 R2 will be 64-bit only."
(http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/archive/2008/09/08/64-bit-window
s-server-hyper-v-and-the-future.aspx)
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Michael B.
Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:37 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
Mark (or anyone else), do you have a reference for this?
(I support it - I just want a reference.) :-)
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com
<http://theessentialexchange.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
Grillenmeier, Guido
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:23 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
Yep, they've touted this for a while now. Makes perfect sense.
/Guido
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Parris (L)
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:04 AM
To: ActiveDir
Subject: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
True to their word:
I read yesterday that Windows 2008 R2 will ship as a 64bit
version only.
Regards,
Mark Parris
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ma/default.aspx
Barclays Wealth is the wealth management division of Barclays Bank PLC. This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group.
The availability of products and services may be limited by the applicable laws and regulations in certain jurisdictions. The Barclays Group does not normally accept or offer business instructions via internet email. Any action that you might take upon this message might be at your own risk.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or without viruses. The Barclays Group does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses. Replies to this email may be monitored by the Barclays Group for operational or business reasons.
Any opinion or other information in this email or its attachments that does not relate to the business of the Barclays Group is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by the Barclays Group.
Barclays Bank PLC. Registered in England and Wales (registered no. 1026167).
Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP, United Kingdom.
Barclays Bank PLC is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
| | | |
|
|