Board index » delphi » Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006


2005-05-03 09:18:19 PM
delphi280
Quote
In what manner does Win 64.net fall down at this hurdle? I am not familiar
with Win64.net.
First by not offering you any control (direct or indirect) over what
code is actually generated. The JIT's optimizations are essentially
peephole optimizations, meaning that if you change a minor thing in your
code (like the order in which two unrelated operations are listed, or
the form of a loop between for & while f.i. in C#), you can have huge
performance differences.
In short, the JIT optimizer is as fragile as they get, and you don't
have BASM to work around its limitations.
Second if you want to use hardware or CPU-specific features, you can't,
and even if that access exists in the FCL, you have to live with however
MS decided to implement it (SIMD instructions f.i.). In Delphi, you have
access to the source and can fix/improve it.
Third, if you want to access native libraries, you have to go through a
layer of fat, aka P/Invoke, and that is and will remain to be the case
for all high-performance libraries (incl. Microsoft's, like DirectX).
Fourth, if you want lightweight services or applications that don't have
to carry around the .Net baggage (and I don't mean installing the .Net
runtime, I mean in-memory, run-time baggage), you can not have them.
Quote
What kind of evidence is there at this stage that the performance of a
Win64.net app is vastly inferior to the performance of a native Win64 one?
That none of the performance-aware software developpers has even
mentionned the possibility of it? And that those that have, actually are
providing collections of native 64 bit libraries to be invoked from
64bit .Net code?
Quote
One would suppose that MS re-architect this infrastructure to optimise it
for Win64 and take advantages of new opportunities rather than make it look
lame in that environment. Have they not done that?
The quetion is actually, how could they do that?
.Net being platform independant, it has to aim for the lowest common
denominator, f.i. ever wondered why support for extended precision
suddenly got dropped?
More fundamentally, how could they behave in a better fashion in the
64bit world, when dragging the same structural flaws as in the 32bit
world? There are thing missing from the MSIL to be efficient, from
constant parameters to SIMD, and the GC is still omni-present (unless
you use C++/CLI).
Quote
My point is that unless you think about their perspective, and address their
real business needs and priorities the noise you make will probably be just
that.
Sheesh, how on earth would it be my job, as a customer, to spend time
and energy convincing someone to sell me something, *especially* when
there are alternatives parties that are willing to sell?
My brand loyalty doesn't extend that far ;)
Quote
[...] The parent has to manage the budget and be responsible.
That's actually the irrationnal point of view you're expressing, but I
do not blame you, some here have been pounding it like if it were
gospel. Borland isn't my parent, it is a supplier, and I am not a baby,
I'm a customer, we are not tied in any way by {*word*76}lines or anything, if
Borland dies, I won't get any heirloom, and if I get in trouble, they
won't come to assist me.
It's funny how in these parts the fundamentals can be forgotten.
Quote
It's not a point about where your self-interest lies.
Well, yes it is. Maybe you're part of a charity, but I am not.
Quote
It's a point about negotiating/advocating for what you want
by understanding the other party and shooting for a win-win deal
instead of just demanding.
That kind of thing doesn't happen, if you force, trick or woo some
company into doing something it doesn't want to do on its own, the
result typically has little value. There needs to be a drive behind
products if you want quality, outlook and care in the support.
Eric
 
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

Bruce McGee wrote in <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>:
Quote
Microsoft's predictions and announcements about .Net adoption have
been self serving and (IMHO) overly optimistic. It only makes sense
that they would act in their own interest. Unfortunately, adoption
has been slower than expected.
Some would say "fortunately it is been slower than expected". ;)
Quote
I think Bill's predictions on Win64 are equally self serving (again,
fair enough) and premature. Maybe even more so since it requires new
hardware.
I don't think so-- propping up .NET was fully self-serving. The only
company to benefit by .NET becoming huge is Microsoft. OTOH, if 64-bit
becomes huge, not just Microsoft stands to benefit-- CPU manufacturers,
software developers and others will stand to gain as well.
Will
--
Want native support in Delphi for AMD64/EM64T? Vote here--
qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

Bruce McGee writes:
Quote
Gates. That names sounds familiar.

Didn't he make some predictions about .Net adoption? How'd that turn
out?
Not too bad, according to trade press reports, but not as fast as he
had hoped. Still it did happen. Where it has made little progress was
in shrinkwrap consumer software, but I am not sure if that was ever in
the initial target zone..
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
Posted with XanaNews 1.17.4.1
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

I wouldn't stake too much on the insights of Bill Gates... :-)
After all, "640 kB ought to be enough for anyone" don't you think?
Besides, in 1995, there was "no future in the internet"... <g>
Regards,
Jonathan Neve.
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

On 05/02/05, Eric Grange said:
Quote
Native of course, .Net doesn't count as 64bit support,
just as Java wouldn't count as 64bit support, as the inefficiencies
of either negates the benefits of 64bit migration.
I think we will see the "native" path become .NET, as it is clear to me
that MS has identified poorly developed apps as damaging to their
business, and in shaping the .NET environment, is taking steps to try
to eliminate the most egregious of the blunders that are commonly found
in app software. As time goes on, I believe they will move to close off
access to unmanaged functions, in an effort to defend against the
hordes of folks whose skills are not equal to the task of developing
highly reliable software.
--
Bill
--------
" They (American universities) do indeed cultivate diversity in race,
skin color, ethnicity, {*word*225} preference. In everything but thought."
-- George Will
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

William Meyer schrieb:
Quote
I think we will see the "native" path become .NET,
if this ever happens it would also become relatively
cheap for MS to port Windows and it is other software
to processor achitectures other than Intels.
But that is in the rather far future.
Martin
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

Will DeWitt Jr. writes:
Quote
if 64-bit becomes huge, not just Microsoft stands to benefit-- CPU
manufacturers, software developers and others will stand to gain as
well.
Thank you for stating this. One of Gates' responsibilities is to create new
markets, and he does this in part by making public statements about future
technology and trends. He works with other industry heads and hopefully
tries to cultivate symbiotic relationships with them. Plainly speaking,
64-bit is a chance for the technology industry to make more money. Whether
or not people actually need or want 64-bit is subservient to the industry's
agenda. I accept that concept, and we are all going to play a unique role
in that arena.
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

On 05/03/05, Martin Waldenburg said:
Quote
if this ever happens it would also become relatively
cheap for MS to port Windows and it is other software
to processor achitectures other than Intels.
But that is in the rather far future.
Agreed, in all respects, but that is another reason I think it is likely
to be their long-term direction.
--
Bill
--------
" They (American universities) do indeed cultivate diversity in race,
skin color, ethnicity, {*word*225} preference. In everything but thought."
-- George Will
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

"Bruce McGee" writes
Quote
Microsoft's predictions and announcements about .Net adoption have been
self serving and (IMHO) overly optimistic. It only makes sense that
they would act in their own interest. Unfortunately, adoption has been
slower than expected. If you don't believe me, attend any VS-Live or
talk to your local Microsoft rep. They're surprisingly open about this.
I do believe you. <G>
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

Quote
in app software. As time goes on, I believe they will move to close off
access to unmanaged functions, in an effort to defend against the
hordes of folks whose skills are not equal to the task of developing
highly reliable software.
This is 100% baloney. Go to MSDN and their blogs also read some
of Bill Gates interviews and see what they have to say
about native code.
Kostya
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

"Kostya" writes:
Quote
This is 100% baloney. Go to MSDN and their blogs also read some
of Bill Gates interviews and see what they have to say
about native code.
But can you really blame any of us for being fooled, when even well written
native code is lumped with pejoratives like:
- unmanaged (managers understand "unmanageable" - bad thing)
- unverifiable (managers think the code cannot be verified to be
functional - very bad)
- unsafe (managers *know* that is baaad from the start)
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

Quote
- unmanaged (managers understand "unmanageable" - bad thing)
- unverifiable (managers think the code cannot be verified to be
functional - very bad)
- unsafe (managers *know* that is baaad from the start)
Because people LOVE to be indoctrinated and take
what are they being fed for granted.
Kostya
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

"Bruce McGee" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Abdullah Kauchali writes:

>
>"Bruce McGee" writes:
>
>>Didn't he make some predictions about .Net adoption? How'd that
>>turn out?
>
>Remind us please ...

Microsoft's predictions and announcements about .Net adoption have been
self serving and (IMHO) overly optimistic. It only makes sense that
they would act in their own interest. Unfortunately, adoption has been
slower than expected. If you don't believe me, attend any VS-Live or
talk to your local Microsoft rep. They're surprisingly open about this.

Several of us here predicted that. There is no reason to expect the rapid
adoption of a new platform that offers no compelling advantages over the
current platform.
-- d
---------------------------------------------------
Need to see what's happening?
Check out the Delphi Community Blog Aggregator
delphi.flashblogger.com
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

Jonathan Neve writes:
Quote
I wouldn't stake too much on the insights of Bill Gates... :-)

After all, "640 kB ought to be enough for anyone" don't you think?
Only problem with this quote is that Gates never said it or anything like
it. Urban Myth.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
"The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to
enjoy yourself and live." - Ayn Rand
 

Re: Bill Gates says 64-bit systems mainstream by 2006

Quote
Several of us here predicted that. There is no reason to expect the rapid
adoption of a new platform that offers no compelling advantages over the
current platform.
I don't see your point . . .
.NET offers no advantages for Delphi developers,
BUT
.NET offers real advantages for VS.NET developers.
Lauchlan M