|
I'm not following you. Perhaps something more concrete to explain the point you're trying to make would help.
|
|
|
|
|
The 16-bit segment selector in the segment register is interpreted as the most significant 16 bits of a linear 20-bit address, called a segment address.
This is in every 32 bit application, including the desktop, 64 bit models use a flat memory model, as long as the operating system has the desktop and compatibility for 32 bit apps it will have this offset problem.
The .net framework removed the problem in 2003 and is the paradigm shift I am referring to.
Windows 8 is the only modern OS without this problem, apple has it and so does android.
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: as long as the operating system has the desktop and compatibility for 32 bit apps it will have this offset problem.
Colborne_Greg wrote: Windows 8 is the only modern OS without this problem
Windows 8 has the desktop and compatibility for 32 bit code. Backwards compatibility with 32-bit code is a big part of the amd64 design and supported by 64-bit Windows including Windows 8.
Having said that, 64- vs. 32-bit and backwards compatibility for 32-bit is a very different discussion than what you started with, namely to indicate that metro somehow replaces desktop and desktop is only for "old code". Seems like two completely different topics 
|
|
|
|
|
Do we live in a 64 bit world?
We don't live in a world where apps are made correctly to use 64 bits, and this compatibility which metro does not have is why the desktop is there and is the only reason.
AMD is hardware as is Intel, otherwise operating systems like metro would not have a base line to advance from.
The desktop can not utilize 64 bits ever as the segment problem is in the heart of every programming language for the desktop.
|
|
|
|
|
No, the desktop is not there solely for 32-bit support. The desktop will remain because the metro full-screen app store environment isn't sufficient to handle everything. Metro addresses a particular need but doesn't replace what the desktop environment provides.
Win8 pushed metro a bit too hard and I think MS realized that which is why in 8.1 you can choose to boot directly to the desktop (and skip the start screen). It also appears with Windows 9 certain profiles (like desktop/laptop machine) will be very desktop-centric.
And yes, you can create a 64-bit desktop application. 64-bit is not restricted to Metro apps
Colborne_Greg wrote: The desktop can not utilize 64 bits ever as the segment problem is in the heart of every programming language for the desktop.
I think you're confused wrt programming languages and 32- vs 64- bit. Which programming languages "for the desktop" are you referring to? You can write in C++, for example, and compile that to either 32- or 64-bit code. The language itself doesn't restrict you to one or the other. Additionally, you can use C++ to create desktop applications and metro store apps. So "programming language for the desktop" doesn't really make any sense.
modified 3-Jul-14 11:52am.
|
|
|
|
|
I did not say the desktop could not have 64 bit apps.
I said that the desktop apps could not utilize the 64 bits, windows xp x64 edition, the best it could use was 54 bits.
32 bits can barely utilize 3.2 GB of RAM.
64 bits can handle billions of terabytes.
We have yet to have a machine that can handle over 200 GB of ram, and there isn't a desktop app in history that has been able to utilize even those 200 GB.
Just to keep the math simple.
if 3.2 GB is 32 bit then 6.4 GB is 33 bit, and
12.8 is 34 bit,
25.6 is 35 bit,
51.2 is 36 bit,
102.4 is 37 bit,
204.8 is 38 bit. <---- no desktop app has even gotten here.
n
The only benefit that the desktop has had from being 64 bit is being able to manage more then 3.2 GB of ram.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I recall reading this[^] article which discussed the limit in Win64 being 44 bits. So in 64-bit Windows you're not actually getting the full 64-bit address space. You are getting a LOT more than with 32-bits though
However, none of this has anything to do with desktop vs. metro which was the original discussion. For a given machine running 64-bit Windows 8, 64-bit code running as a desktop app or a metro windows store app will both be subject to the same limitations. The hardware/OS limitations apply equally to both.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah it does
This whole problem is due to the 16 bit offset, the fact that 32 bit was built on top of it and so is 64 bit.
Only metro with the .net framework as the substructure which is a paradigm shift from the 16 bit offset; will software advance - therefore the desktop is a piece of sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
1) You can build metro apps using native C++ code without going through the .net framework
2) You can use the .net framework to create either metro apps or desktop apps
3) Code using the .net framework is subject to the same Win64 address space limitations as any other process running on the machine
Whether you like it or not, the desktop isn't going anywhere
|
|
|
|
|
1) applications use metro and have to use these libraries, use whatever language you want
2) metro is the .net framework as an operating system (not limited by OS), .net framework is an add on to the desktop (limited by OS)
3) in windows 8 the desktop is an application of the metro memory address space.
The desktop is a piece of sh*t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I program Microsoft technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
I think your obvious enthusiasm for metro is great, but I'm not sure you fully get how the pieces go together. I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree
|
|
|
|
|
I am telling you how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
If windows 9 has no desktop, I'll buy a Mac and register to iCodeProject...
I don't believe a second the desktop is going away! not now, not in the next 5-10 years.
The desktop is where the vast majority of business softwares run. Business is where Microsoft makes more than 55% of its income!
Unless Microsoft suddenly decides they want to die overnight there's not a chance they dump the desktop in the short to medium term!
Windows 8 was another Vista disaster, I doubt Windows 9 will be Vista 3.0!!
|
|
|
|
|
Valery Possoz wrote: Windows 8 was another Vista disaster
Vista was ME 2.0 
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but ME was DOS4.0.2.0! 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Vista was longhorn 2.0
XP was ME + windows 2000
Windows 8 is XP + Vista - oh look its all of them.
Go buy a mac
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: Vista was longhorn 2.0
Longhorn was the code name of Vista. I have the beta. 
Colborne_Greg wrote: Go buy a mac
Never! 
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Chicken before the egg.
Longhorn is an operating system without purpose created right out of the box with the .net framework 1.1.
Vista is an attempt to make money off an incomplete project, and is the only reason it failed.
Windows 8 is also longhorn.
I was trained by Microsoft in 2002 in .net 1.1 before it was publicly released, we used to say longhorn, in it for the long haul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you didn't notice the article does not say longhorn is vista. thanks for playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Longhorn is an incomplete operating system.
Vista takes Longhorn and turns it into an operating system but vista is not longhorn, its an attempt to sell the project.
Get over yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Colborne_Greg wrote: Get over yourself.
Why are you being so rude and confrontational?
You are not the only person who knows someone who works at Microsoft or knows the history of operating systems. The fact is that Longhorn was the code name for the release that was scheduled between Whistler and Blackcomb. Whoever told you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
