64 Bit Processors

[AlphaTrace]

Your analogy is already crap (no offense) considering that hardware has nothing to do with compadibility of anything by the fact that everything is software controlled (excluding what hardware was made for p4c 32bit vs itanium 64bit etc with the given that the hardware expressed conformsd to the said API). And yes, Windows NT 3.51, without any service packs, is a true 32bit enviroment because of it's architecture, and just because it can't run say a brand new game has nothing to do with the fact that NT isn't "32bit" compadible with it but it has to do with the fact the game was built to use newer operating engines. It has nothing to do with windows xp is more "32bit" than windows NT.

The analogy wasn't mine, I just applied yours to a different subject in order to create a queston, which you failed to answer and debunked completly because the answer you want to give is simply incorrect.

Hardware has nothing to do with the compatibility of anything? You are once again wrong. Without emulation or conversion, hardware is the key not just to speed, but compatibility. You try to run MacOS 9 on an IBM Compatible without emulation. My point wasn't to do with compatibility though, it was weather the A64 is a "true" 64bit processor.

Yes this maybe a computer forum, but making an analogy with references to human atonomy can't be dismissed simply because it "cannot be accuratly parralled". If you think carefully, it was "paralled" perfectly. 32bit=male atomony, 64bit=female atomony. A64=32/64, transvestite=male/female. Just because you are incapable of answering the question, doesnt mean the question is invalid.

Meanwhile Win 3.51 NT would be perfectly capable of playing the latest games if they had included libaries and API's such as DirectX and they were updated, but that doesn't make it a "true" 32bit OS. A true 32bit OS wouldn't have the 16bit undercore of DOS, or even the conversion layer for 16bit apps. I could argue compatibility means something isn't "true", which is my point, be it 100% accurate or not. Therefore stating that WinXP too, is not a "true" 32bit OS since it can run 16bit apps, for the most part. However think thats taking my point too far, and beyond your scope.

You may well be asking what "true" is, as you brought its definition into question. Well I have tried to always put speech marks around the word to indicate I'm using it in slang sense. Imo, a piece of ware that is "true", is something that does exactly and exclusivly what it says. Therefore saying that a Pentium4 is a true/pure 32bit processor would be incorrect because it can ALSO execute 16bit code. Meanwhile if you took a Itanium, ripped the IA-32 layer out, you could say its a "true/pure" 64bit processor, because thats ALL it could execute.

Your argumentitive style, and word layout sounds very familiar to that of someone working in marketing. So either your working for a goverment agency, company, or are just argumentitivly patriotic towards your opinion. I think the word for that is arrogant. I have a sneaky suspicion that you are American, can you confirm that?

Remember, I never argued about compatibility, just whether the processor was a "true" 64bit processor.

 

[urbanfox]

The analogy wasn't mine, I just applied yours to a different subject in order to create a queston, which you failed to answer and debunked completly because the answer you want to give is simply incorrect.
Hardware has nothing to do with the compatibility of anything? You are once again wrong. Without emulation or conversion, hardware is the key not just to speed, but compatibility. You try to run MacOS 9 on an IBM Compatible without emulation. My point wasn't to do with compatibility though, it was weather the A64 is a "true" 64bit processor.

Yes this maybe a computer forum, but making an analogy with references to human atonomy can't be dismissed simply because it "cannot be accuratly parralled". If you think carefully, it was "paralled" perfectly. 32bit=male atomony, 64bit=female atomony. A64=32/64, transvestite=male/female. Just because you are incapable of answering the question, doesnt mean the question is invalid.

Meanwhile Win 3.51 NT would be perfectly capable of playing the latest games if they had included libaries and API's such as DirectX and they were updated, but that doesn't make it a "true" 32bit OS. A true 32bit OS wouldn't have the 16bit undercore of DOS, or even the conversion layer for 16bit apps. I could argue compatibility means something isn't "true", which is my point, be it 100% accurate or not. Therefore stating that WinXP too, is not a "true" 32bit OS since it can run 16bit apps, for the most part. However think thats taking my point too far, and beyond your scope.

You may well be asking what "true" is, as you brought its definition into question. Well I have tried to always put speech marks around the word to indicate I'm using it in slang sense. Imo, a piece of ware that is "true", is something that does exactly and exclusivly what it says. Therefore saying that a Pentium4 is a true/pure 32bit processor would be incorrect because it can ALSO execute 16bit code. Meanwhile if you took a Itanium, ripped the IA-32 layer out, you could say its a "true/pure" 64bit processor, because thats ALL it could execute.

Your argumentitive style, and word layout sounds very familiar to that of someone working in marketing. So either your working for a goverment agency, company, or are just argumentitivly patriotic towards your opinion. I think the word for that is arrogant. I have a sneaky suspicion that you are American, can you confirm that?

Remember, I never argued about compatibility, just whether the processor was a "true" 64bit processor.

I debunked because you could not accurately parrellel anatomoy becuase a transvestite is not a true female and male, because last time i checked a women who got a male part could not masterbate and eject stuff. the idea that we are debating your sexual crap analogy is horrible this isn't the grahm norton show it's a computer forum.

Notice the part where i said

(excluding what hardware was made for p4c 32bit vs itanium 64bit etc with the given that the hardware expressed conformsd to the said API).

I guess that exempts me from any misreading/misinterpetation of your whole paragraph

... that has to be one of the stupidest thinsg i've ever heard, because, with that logic, like you said, even windows xp wouldn't be a true 32bit os. what bs is that.

just because the said hardware supports 32bit in addition to 64bit doesn't make it any less of a 64bit cabable/enabled than a stand alone 64bit cpu despite what you say or think


Just because someone knows how to sell the truth doesn't mean e or she is in marketing... look at my profile im a network administrator not an ad man for mcdonalds.

And yes, no shyt i am american everyone in this goddam forum knows that and i will not take any of your bull**** mention it again and ur kicked from this thread because i see where you are going and if you keep on this track don't be surprised if you can't see the computer forum anymore



bottom line... A64 is true 64bit, biatch because it can run anything and everything that any other 64bit cpu can. period.

 

[AlphaTrace]

Blue reply, I parralled the analogy perfectly, twice. You even proved it without realising it in your blue reply.

Green reply, and the quote within it needs to be seriously rewritten to be understood as English. Do they not ask for english skills when applying for a job over there, or did you get into networking through aquaintences?

Brown reply, see my comment about your scope, and my explanation of "true".

Orange reply, I never said it did. I said the compatibility layer made it not "true".

Black reply, Im sorry that i don't look at members profiles before trying to discuss something with them, I wasn't aware that I needed to. As for your forum reputation, I don't view this place all too often, but with the level of communication skill expressed by yourself and others, can you blame me? Hold on a second, your going to kick me from a thread for asking questions and having an opinion? Jesus is 'free' speach really so controlled over there, your starting to sound like your Government. You should take note that I have not violated any of this forums rules, set by yourself and others, therefore there is no reason to abuse your power and stop my viewing of this forum. Giving me that type of response has shown me that I've hit a nerve and makes me question your maturity.

Your bottom line is wrong, A64 is 64bit capable, not PURE/TRUE 64bit. Careful about your use of true. Naturally you are not going to accept that your wrong, for obvious already stated reasons.

 

[urbanfox]

Black reply, Im sorry that i don't look at members profiles before trying to discuss something with them, I wasn't aware that I needed to. As for your forum reputation, I don't view this place all too often, but with the level of communication skill expressed by yourself and others, can you blame me? Hold on a second, your going to kick me from a thread for asking questions and having an opinion? Jesus is 'free' speach really so controlled over there, your starting to sound like your Government. You should take note that I have not violated any of this forums rules, set by yourself and others, therefore there is no reason to abuse your power and stop my viewing of this forum. Giving me that type of response has shown me that I've hit a nerve and makes me question your maturity.

You don't need to look at profiles, but it would save your job-guessing shadowed charachter assination.

This forum is a forum of free speech, but i would assume someone who has been here since december would know something about the forum and it's responses and large threads about different things including the huge majority of anti american sentinism here. whether from your lack of playing dumb or ignorance, don't mention anything about anyone's and most certainly my locale background. i don't need to explain the rules, i told u, obey them or not.

Bottom line is, once again, the A64 is a true 64bit cpu, whether you like to admit it or not. You basis of opinion is that since it also supports 32bit api it can't be true... well that is false. The 32bit extensions in no retract from it's true 64bit extensions.

This thread posed a question, and that question was answered long ago. If you would like to further discuss the issue, please make another thread pertaining to it or pm me and i would love to continue on anything you would like to add.