Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #19346

Re: 32 or 64

Show all headers | View raw

don wrote:
> I don't mean to split hairs but in my experience 32 bit versions of eclipse

You have it backwards. The 32-bit version of Eclipse is for when you have the 
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 programs 
with it. But your complaint was that somehow Oracle was forcing you to do that.
So far only you are forcing you to do that.

> required a 32 bit JVM. Likewise Vuze. 32 bit Firefox requires a 32 bit JVM

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 things.

It is your own choice to use 32-bit software outside of Java, then trying to 
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 programs
> 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 insistence 
on using 32-bit software that caused it. If that's the only software you use 
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 Java 
shouldn't replace the Windows version. 

> For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of all 
> the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require users 
> to have installed two versions of the Java VM? 

No. So why did you require that?

-- 
Lew

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

32 or 64 don <thedon@here.com> - 2012-10-14 11:58 -0400
  Re: 32 or 64 Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-10-14 12:41 -0400
  Re: 32 or 64 don <thedon@here.com> - 2012-10-14 13:53 -0400
    Re: 32 or 64 Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2012-10-14 14:37 -0400
    Re: 32 or 64 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 11:38 -0700
      Re: 32 or 64 don <thedon@here.com> - 2012-10-14 15:10 -0400
        Re: 32 or 64 Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 21:31 -0700
  Re: 32 or 64 Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-10-14 22:43 -0700

csiph-web