On 12 Oct 2010 at 7:55, Phil Daley wrote:
> At 10/11/2010 08:59 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
>
> >On 10/11/2010 4:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> >> I don't know who said 64-bit Windows does not support Flash. It's
> >> simply not true. Absolute balderdash.
> >I think the issue is that
> > there is still not an official release of a >64-bit Flash plugin,
> > just a preview release:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#64-bit_support
> > I'm guessing that the 32-bit plugin works adequately under
> > 64-bit.
>
> Only if you run the 32-bit IE browser.
Since that's the default, why would you suggest that there'd be a
problem with that? There aren't actually any problems with running 32-
bit browsers on 64-bit Windows.
> If you run the 64-bit IE browser, it didn't work.
Which is not at all what you said, which was:
If it uses Adobe Flash, it won't work.
That's simply not true as it stands.
> If a program calls into 64-bit Windows for a IE browser session, the
> 64-bit browser comes up, not supporting Flash.
If a program calls other applications in a way that overrides a
user's choices about default browser, and uses IE (even if the user
has FireFox or Chrome or Safari or Opera defined as their default
browser), then the problem is not with Flash or Windows, but with the
programmer who isn't doing things right.
Finale for Windows was an excellent example of that particular
programmer's error for many years, with the hardwired dependency on
IE. Whether or not even *that* dependency would have invoked 64-bit
IE had Finale been 64-bit is an open question -- it entirely depends
on which APIs have been used and how MS is managing the interaction
of the 64-bit and 32-bit versions of IE with Windows API calls.
And, of course, IE is irrelevant to most people who don't use it as
their browser, and only becomes relevant in the case where the
programmer has made the mistake of ignoring the user's choices for
default browser.
Here's a free clue:
64-bit goodness only directly benefits certain classes of
applications to any large degree, in particular, those that use a lot
of memory. Applications like Finale don't use that kind of memory so
don't really benefit.
On the other hand, apps like the Aria Player use lots of memory
(because of the large sample files involved), and would likely
benefit from running 64-bit. However, Finale users don't have to
worry about that -- they aren't losing anything, as only 32-bit
Finale exists, and MM is shipping with 32-bit dependent components.
And 32-bit apps run just fine on 64-bit Windows. Indeed, MS doesn't
even recommend using the 64-bit version of its flagship product,
Office 2010. Instead, they recommend installing the 32-bit version
except for cases where you affirmatively know you'll benefit from it
(the only example they give is huge Excel memory-hungry
spreadsheets).
Why does MS recommend against installing 64-bit Office 2010? Because
the benefits of 64-bit-ness are not all they are cracked up to be,
and because MS knows that not all add-ins for Office are compatible
with 64-bit Office. It's the outside dependencies that are the main
issue.
In the case of Finale, MM had plenty of time to get ready for it and
test their 32-bit versions on 64-bit Windows (64-bit Windows has been
a mainstream product for quite a long time, but is only getting wide
use now that many hardware makers are providing fully compatible
hardware and shipping with 64-bit Windows). The main future benefit
from a potential 64-bit Finale would be the interaction with
Garritan, which is a memory-intensive outside dependency for Finale.
Until that time, it does not appear to me that there's anything to
worry about, and Phil has done nothing but confuse the issue by raise
issues that are simply not applicable to Finale, and in at least two
cases, factually incorrect to boot.
--
David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
