This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C8656D.EE34D6A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My computer is 3.2 MHz Intel with 4 Gb memory installed ( I was not at =
that time aware of the memory addressing limitation).=20
I am running Wildfire 2.0 with Intralink 3.4
I have fairly large detailed assemblies that cause Windows to hit the =
memory ceiling at about 1,7 Gb.
The system then turns very sluggish and my hope was that a 64-bit system =
would be the solution.
It still may be, but so far I have not heard of any 64-bit enthusiast =
(i.e. on Windows).
Thanks for your input
Bertil
"Janes" <djanes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i meddelandet =
news:KqPoj.83410$Rw3.36660@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Ben & Mickie Loosli" <looslib@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message =
news:13q7dc277h7ud9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We run 64bit Pro/E on a workstation and a server, 2 quadcore =
processsors, for those who need the extra memory. It does handle our =
largest models for those situations where needed. We design aircraft =
mods, so our files do tend to be quite large.
"Janes" <djanes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message =
news:v5Ooj.20877$ov5.3216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Bertil Rogmark" <bertil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message =
news:%mLoj.3396$R_4.2427@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it worthwile to go this way?
Bertil=20
I don't think so for the following reasons:
a.. PTC has only ever had two or three implementation of Pro/e =
for 64 bit machines and those were HP-UX, Sun Solaris and XP Pro running =
on a limited number of Xeon machines, so if you don't have one of these =
choice workstations, you're probably SOL;=20
b.. Pro/e is not a multi threaded app and seems incapable of =
taking advantage of multi-processor environments. It does benefit from =
the extended memory addressing of 64 bit, but that seems to be about it =
for advantages. So, you really need to be crunched for memory to take =
real advantage of 64 bit hardware/software combos;=20
c.. 64 bit seems to suffer, speed wise, by the additional =
overhead and is not inherently faster than 32 bit processing (and runs =
32 bit apps typically slower than a 32 bit machine), except for those =
tasks that can be done no other way;=20
d.. 64 bit processing on Windows platforms is still in its =
infancy so the driver situation, the number of standard apps ****ted to =
64 bit and connectivity issues still plague the 64 bit world and it lags =
in its adoption ~ another reason to recommend against it.
David Janes
I guess what's missing from this discussion is some basic information: =
what are your memory needs, Bertil? Why are you considering going 64 =
bit?
David Janes
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C8656D.EE34D6A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My computer is 3.2 MHz Intel with 4 Gb =
memory=20
installed ( I was not at that time aware of the memory addressing =
limitation).=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I am running Wildfire 2.0 with =
Intralink=20
3.4</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have fairly large detailed assemblies =
that cause=20
Windows to hit the memory ceiling at about 1,7 Gb.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The system then turns very sluggish and =
my hope was=20
that a 64-bit system would be the solution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It still may be, but so far I have not =
heard of any=20
64-bit enthusiast (i.e. on Windows).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks for your input</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bertil</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Janes" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:djanes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">djanes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> skrev=20
i meddelandet <A=20
=
href=3D"news:KqPoj.83410$Rw3.36660@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">news:KqPoj.83410$Rw3.366=
60@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Ben & Mickie Loosli" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:looslib@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">looslib@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:13q7dc277h7ud9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">news:13q7dc277h7ud9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We run 64bit Pro/E on a workstation =
and a=20
server, 2 quadcore processsors, for those who need the extra memory. =
It does=20
handle our largest models for those situations where needed. We =
design=20
aircraft mods, so our files do tend to be quite large.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Janes" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:djanes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">djanes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:v5Ooj.20877$ov5.3216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">news:v5Ooj.20877$ov5.3216=
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Bertil Rogmark" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:bertil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">bertil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:%mLoj.3396$R_4.2427@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
">news:%mLoj.3396$R_4.242=
7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...</DIV>Is=20
it worthwile to go this way?<BR><BR>Bertil <BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>I don't think so for the following reasons:</DIV>
<UL>
<LI>PTC has only ever had two or three implementation =
of Pro/e=20
for 64 bit machines and those were HP-UX, Sun Solaris and XP Pro =
running=20
on a limited number of Xeon machines, so if you don't have =
one of=20
these choice workstations, you're probably SOL;=20
<LI>Pro/e is not a multi threaded app and seems incapable of =
taking=20
advantage of multi-processor environments. It does benefit from =
the=20
extended memory addressing of 64 bit, but that seems to be about =
it for=20
advantages. So, you really need to be crunched for memory to =
take real=20
advantage of 64 bit hardware/software combos;=20
<LI>64 bit seems to suffer, speed wise, by the additional =
overhead and=20
is not inherently faster than 32 bit processing (and runs 32 bit =
apps=20
typically slower than a 32 bit machine), except for those tasks =
that can=20
be done no other way;=20
<LI>64 bit processing on Windows platforms is still in its =
infancy so=20
the driver situation, the number of standard apps ****ted to 64 =
bit and=20
connectivity issues still plague the 64 bit world and it lags in =
its=20
adoption ~ another reason to recommend against it.</LI></UL>
<DIV>David Janes</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DIV>I guess what's missing from this discussion is some basic =
information:=20
what are your memory needs, Bertil? Why are you considering going 64=20
bit?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>David Janes</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C8656D.EE34D6A0--
|
