64 bit Windows 2003 Server does not suppot .NET
-
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/highlights.mspx#netframe[^] The .NET Framework enables.........Note: This feature is not available in 64-bit versions of the Windows Server 2003 family. Errr. I'm confused. I would have thought this would be an area where they would want to push it. :confused: Quote from a clever bloke : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Giles wrote: Errr. I'm confused. I would have thought this would be an area where they would want to push it. I share your confusion !! I can't think of any good reasons why this is so. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:
-
Giles wrote: Errr. I'm confused. I would have thought this would be an area where they would want to push it. I share your confusion !! I can't think of any good reasons why this is so. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:
Colin Davies wrote: I can't think of any good reasons why this is so. I'd say it's the lacking availability of intel 64-bit hardware. Nobody's using 64-bit Intel hardware right now (very very few). If there's no real demand, why supply? -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/highlights.mspx#netframe[^] The .NET Framework enables.........Note: This feature is not available in 64-bit versions of the Windows Server 2003 family. Errr. I'm confused. I would have thought this would be an area where they would want to push it. :confused: Quote from a clever bloke : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
I would disagree. The whole idea of going to a 64bit OS is for enterprise class software to address performance or memory constraints in a 32bit environment. I wouldn't think that anyone would be trying to write a 64bit process to solve these enterprise level problems would really be that interested in having a 64bit .NET implementation. Keep in mind you can still run the 32bit version of .NET on Win64.
-
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/highlights.mspx#netframe[^] The .NET Framework enables.........Note: This feature is not available in 64-bit versions of the Windows Server 2003 family. Errr. I'm confused. I would have thought this would be an area where they would want to push it. :confused: Quote from a clever bloke : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
With risk of making myself unpopular (what else is new?), I would also like to point out that Sun has had a version of Java (latests JDK as well) out for the 64bit versions of Linux, Solaris AND Windows. Not being able to speak for the Linux and Windows versions, I have to say that the 64bit Solaris version really kicks arse in speed (beleive it or not). /CMH
-
Giles wrote: Errr. I'm confused. I would have thought this would be an area where they would want to push it. I share your confusion !! I can't think of any good reasons why this is so. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:
Microsoft probably couldn't make it perform well. JIT compiling for Itanium isn't easy, and 64 bit memory management isn't straight-forward either.
-
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/highlights.mspx#netframe[^] The .NET Framework enables.........Note: This feature is not available in 64-bit versions of the Windows Server 2003 family. Errr. I'm confused. I would have thought this would be an area where they would want to push it. :confused: Quote from a clever bloke : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
-
I would disagree. The whole idea of going to a 64bit OS is for enterprise class software to address performance or memory constraints in a 32bit environment. I wouldn't think that anyone would be trying to write a 64bit process to solve these enterprise level problems would really be that interested in having a 64bit .NET implementation. Keep in mind you can still run the 32bit version of .NET on Win64.
Terry Denham wrote: I wouldn't think that anyone would be trying to write a 64bit process to solve these enterprise level problems would really be that interested in having a 64bit .NET implementation. Yuk!, like running a 16bit bit app (Win 3.1) under NT. X|
-
Terry Denham wrote: I wouldn't think that anyone would be trying to write a 64bit process to solve these enterprise level problems would really be that interested in having a 64bit .NET implementation. Yuk!, like running a 16bit bit app (Win 3.1) under NT. X|
Norm Almond wrote: Yuk!, like running a 16bit bit app (Win 3.1) under NT. Close but not exactly the same. The 16bit model used a segmented memory model where both 32bit and 64bit use a flat memory model so I think this would be less of a problem that than WoW. But my main point was that I don't think .NET is a good solution for the problems that 64bit computing is trying so solve.
-
Terry Denham wrote: I wouldn't think that anyone would be trying to write a 64bit process to solve these enterprise level problems would really be that interested in having a 64bit .NET implementation. Yuk!, like running a 16bit bit app (Win 3.1) under NT. X|
Norm Almond wrote: Yuk!, like running a 16bit bit app (Win 3.1) under NT. Don't remind me! I spent three years on a mixed 16/32 bit system that ran on an embedded VXIbus controller under NT 3.51 and 4.0. At least I didn't get the really grotty job - writing a thunking layer for a device driver we needed (NI-VISA). With the tools and machines we have now (I have a 2GHz Xeon on my desk) it seems astonishing that we actually got anything done on that project - and it wasn't really that long ago (I left in 1998, and it was just starting system integration). Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Colin Davies wrote: I can't think of any good reasons why this is so. I'd say it's the lacking availability of intel 64-bit hardware. Nobody's using 64-bit Intel hardware right now (very very few). If there's no real demand, why supply? -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Nobody's using 64-bit Intel hardware right now (very very few). True. True. But 64 is where we are headed, oneway or the other. I just thought it would be done now to make it easier in the future. I maybe naivly thought it would be just a matter of modding the compilers to make a version of .NET for 64 bit. Sure if there is no demand for a product there is no use in producing in. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:
-
I would disagree. The whole idea of going to a 64bit OS is for enterprise class software to address performance or memory constraints in a 32bit environment. I wouldn't think that anyone would be trying to write a 64bit process to solve these enterprise level problems would really be that interested in having a 64bit .NET implementation. Keep in mind you can still run the 32bit version of .NET on Win64.
Terry Denham wrote: I wouldn't think that anyone would be trying to write a 64bit process to solve these enterprise level problems would really be that interested in having a 64bit .NET implementation But often when you produse a product, like that, the next step is that you find folk using it even if totally how you had never dreamed. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote: