| Author | Messages | |
scevans
Posts:24
 | | 09/24/2008 1:31 PM |
| It will finally push the software vendors to writing apps that work on x64
OS's. We have a handle full of x86 OS's because the vendor either doesn't
support x64, or they say something along the lines of "well it SHOULD work
okay on x64, but we've never done it."
Steve Evans
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
neil.ruston@barclayswealth.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:31 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
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.
J
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-windows-se
rver-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.
| | | |
| scevans
Posts:24
| | 09/24/2008 1:31 PM |
| It will finally push the software vendors to writing apps that work on x64
OS's. We have a handle full of x86 OS's because the vendor either doesn't
support x64, or they say something along the lines of "well it SHOULD work
okay on x64, but we've never done it."
Steve Evans
From: ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
neil.ruston@barclayswealth.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:31 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Thinking of going 64 bit?
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.
J
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-windows-se
rver-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.
| | | |
|
|