Re: 32 or 64
don wrote:
I don't mean to split hairs but in my experience 32 bit versions of eclip=
se
You have it backwards. The 32-bit version of Eclipse is for when you have t=
he
a 32-bit system. Why would you install it on a 64-bit system?
Of course if you install a 32-bit program you will need to run 32-bit progr=
ams
with it. But your complaint was that somehow Oracle was forcing you to do t=
hat.
So far only you are forcing you to do that.
required a 32 bit JVM. Likewise Vuze. 32 bit Firefox requires a 32 bit JV=
M
Ditto and ditto. Both of those come in 64-bit versions. In neither case is=
Oracle the one forcing you to install both 32- and 64-bit versions of thing=
s.
It is your own choice to use 32-bit software outside of Java, then trying t=
o
use Java that works with them, that forces you to use 32-bit Java.
to run applets. I don't have much of a list because it consists only of
those programs which I use or have used and my recollections of them.
But why didn't you use the 64-bit versions of these programs?
Certainly there have been enough of these for me to know that, of program=
s
which require Java to run, some of them require 32 bit JVM's and some 64.
Is this really a point of contention?
If you make it one, it is.
Your complaint is that it was Java's fault. It wasn't, It was your insisten=
ce
on using 32-bit software that caused it. If that's the only software you us=
e
that hooks into Java, then you didn't need the 64-bit version. Either way, =
as
far as Java's concerned you only need one version.
By the way, the difference in these products between the 32- and 64-bit
isn't in the Java, as you seem to think, it's in the native code.
Yet another layer of why your complaint with Oracle or Java is misplaced.
So to your original post:
Isn't it desirable that the transition from 32 to 64 bit Java should
eventually replace and obsolete the 32 bit version?
No. There is no such transition, so your question makes no sense.
32-bit and 64-bit Java operate in different environments. If you mix the
environments then you mix the needs, but that's not Java's fault. The two=
versions are not replacements for each other, but versions targeted for
different platforms.
Your question makes as much sense as asking if the Macintosh version of Jav=
a
shouldn't replace the Windows version.
For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of al=
l
the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require user=
s
to have installed two versions of the Java VM?
No. So why did you require that?
--
Lew