64bit version
-
Here's a good example: The colour space now is 32bit and will hardly get bigger. The 24bit colour space already has even more colours than our eyes can possibly distinguish. The extra 8 bit are merely for alpha to enhance image processing.
I'm sorry, but you should've chosen a better example, since in this case, it's pretty obvious you don't really know what you're talking about.
Yes, 24 bit color in theory means there's 16.8 million color combinations available. Which, taken out of context, is indeed a bigger number than the usually cited 10 million colors the human eye can see (which is just an estimate, though).
However, it's not as simple as that. 24 bit color means there's 8 bits for red, 8 bits for green and 8 bits for blue. Which means that there's only 255 shades of each color available (including shades of grey - yes, you only have 256 colors available if you want to display a black and white picture). And that's really not that great. As any graphic designer or photographer will tell you, especially when it comes to fine gradients, it's actually pretty easy to "run out of colors" with 24 bit color and be forced to try and hide it with tricks like dithering, despite the fact that the theoretical number of colors with 24bit colors should be higher than what the human eye can see. Your eye can definitely distinguish more than 256 shades of a color when it comes to gradients - you'll see banding, the gradient won't be smooth, there will be visible steps between the individual colors. What's commonly referred to as "true color" actually isn't.
It's actually a bit more complex than that (the human eye does not perceive color changes in a linear way, it is more sensitive to some colors than the others etc.), but the point is, we actually do need better color depths than 24 bits. We've needed it for years. We even commonly use hardware that can do better than 24 bit color depth - even pretty old DSLR cameras could do 12 bits per color channel (so 36 bit color), giving you 4096 RGB values instead of only 256. And most of the newer DSLR cameras even have 14 bits per color channel (48 bit color), which gives you 16384 RGB values. Scanners also have higher bit color available pretty much as a norm. Our graphics cards and especially monitors have been the weakest link here for a long time - quite a lot of the cheaper ones do not even have full 8 bits per color channel.
So, to sum it up - no, 24 bit color does not offer you more colors than our eyes can possibly distinguish. Far from it sadly. And adopting a higher bit color as standard is now long overdue.
As for what you mean by "the extra 8 bit are merely for alpha to enhance image processing", I have no idea. Alpha channel has nothing to do with image processing whatsoever. The value in alpha channel defines transparency of the given color. And again, it only has 256 steps available when it comes to 24/32 bit color.
Also, none of this has anything to do with 64bit systems, really. You can work with higher than 24/32 bit color depths just fine under 32 bit systems.
(And there goes me wanting to stay out of this thread…)
-
MY Got it was Vista 2.0. It has a face lift and some tuning up but it was Vista still re-bagged and called windows 7.
Vista (sp0) was the alpha of seven. PERIOD.
Was crap, unstable, plenty of incompatibilities, plenty of baroque and unhandy UI elements and do on.
seven is just the OS they should release. But having millions of alpha and beta testers is better than having few thousands in a proper beta test program.
And vista 64 was Waaaaay more unpleasant to use, because the mandatory driver signature (acceptable today, incredibly annoying at the time), that was an MS choice rather than a difference in the architecture, but all in all was a further point in favor of the 32 bit
-
@Al-Khwarizmi:
Read my previous post. 64-bit improves performance even if you never use any integer greater than 2^32.
Not improves.
Can improve
Which is way different
(it depends on how much are optimized the compilation process, and how the program was written and another zillion of factors)
Here there is people that replies about theory against people who talk about the real world scenario, the real world WINDOWS scenario.Who talks about theory is (obviously) right, but here the argument is how much is worth to have a 64bit browser FOR THE WINDOWS platform. And the advantages are almost nonexistent, especially talking of a Chromium based browser which is multiprocess.
The following link is about Chrome.
Just two benchmarks. One is on par, in the other one 32 wins by 7% (and real world beats theory by a large margin )
http://www.7tutorials.com/google-chrome-64-bit-it-better-32-bit-version
-
MY Got it was Vista 2.0. It has a face lift and some tuning up but it was Vista still re-bagged and called windows 7.
Vista (sp0) was the alpha of seven. PERIOD.
Was crap, unstable, plenty of incompatibilities, plenty of baroque and unhandy UI elements and do on.
seven is just the OS they should release. But having millions of alpha and beta testers is better than having few thousands in a proper beta test program.
And vista 64 was Waaaaay more unpleasant to use, because the mandatory driver signature (acceptable today, incredibly annoying at the time), that was an MS choice rather than a difference in the architecture, but all in all was a further point in favor of the 32 bit
funny I've been running Vista Ultimate 64bit on one machine since it was released and never have had an issue with the operating system. I think you having issues says more about you than the OS.
-
@Case
Ok, my example was bad, thanks for the insight. But the no hurry for everything 64bit is still not here.@Al-Khwarizmi:
Read my previous post. 64-bit improves performance even if you never use any integer greater than 2^32.
And? Windows being 64-bit already does this, it will fill the 64bit bus with integers from two different 32bit software.
The_Solutor brought exactly the point of the discussion:
@The_Solutor:(…) here the argument is how much is worth to have a 64bit browser FOR THE WINDOWS platform. And the advantages are almost nonexistent, especially talking of a Chromium based browser which is multiprocess.
What we really need in 64bit are 3D software (Blender/Maya), Image/Video Processing (Photoshop/After Effects), Simulators and some games (any gamer has a computer with way over 4GB of RAM, still games can only allocate that much of RAM, which often leads to crashes with few mods installed)
-
I think you having issues says more about you than the OS.
Listen.
I bought my first computer in the '82, reading what you wrote I'm sure it was before your arrival on this planet, and for the record was a 16 bit computer when the rest of the world was still running on 8bit.
IT is my work, as tecnician, as juyrnalist, as system administrator since the AD 1998 or so.
So I can't care less about your fanboysm, and I care even less about any form of fanboysm (maybe opera is partly excluded )
What I'm saying is backed by years of experience as technician, as user, and as forum user/moderator.
Saying that Vista was great sounds, more or less, the same as saying that Adolf Hitler was a good man. :lol:
-
Mate I work in the same field. Computer Tech too. I started in 1990 been working with computers earlier than that. I never said Vista was the Awesome, But If you really knew anything at all… You would know it was a bit resource hungry and when it came out there was a huge lack of driver for it, but apart from that it's solid.
You must think I'm really lucky to be running it on a machine for all these years and never having even one issue with it. I don't think I'm lucky, I know it's a solid Operating system. It don't run as sweet as 7 or 8, but it's still solid.If your a technician then I would not trust you with any machine. You remind me of this woman around here running a computer business from home. I was away and a friend got a display notebook. he needed some things done to it and had to take it to her.
when I got back he brought it straight to me and told me he took it to her and she stuffed it. I looked at it and worked out what she had done and ended up having to fix the mess she had made.You can carry on about your work or whatever, but there is a probability that there are a number of us Techs in this forum. So don't make me laugh thinking you are the only one. To be completely honest I prefer the hardware side of computers, but anyone with a brain knows working with computers I also have to work with the OS and other software.
Oh comparing on OS to Hitler? what the hell is that about. Watch out Vista is coming to cleanse world of you.. hahaha
-
My $.02 worth: I build and service systems for friends and family - not as a business. An OS is "solid" if it is at least somewhat idiot-proof. Vista was not. It was easily broken, and it easily broke things. My daughter accidentally installed the wrong bit-depth driver for her new Sony camera on a Sony Vista laptop, and that was all she wrote. The damn thing crashed and wouldn't even boot. I had to build an XP boot disc with OS and repair utilities on it, to get to the repair partition and roll it back to factory state. That same laptop, in her husband's care, just got worse and worse under Vista (he's a video and projection tech and used it as his work machine) until I got it from them and put Win7 on it - which pretty well squared it away. Eventually I wound up having to brain-wipe it and put a clean 7 on, and now it runs Win 10 TP (quite smartly, I might add) but WinVista was an unmitigated disaster on it. Likewise, both my old home tower and my wife's (mine X86 and hers X64) were never any good under Vista and required Win7 to put them right.
So no one should try to pretend that WinVista, in any but the most exceptional circumstances, was anything like a "solid" OS. It was awful. It was resource-hungry, touchy, fragile, and temperamental - something even its authors could not love.
-
My $.02 worth: I build and service systems for friends and family - not as a business. An OS is "solid" if it is at least somewhat idiot-proof. Vista was not. It was easily broken, and it easily broke things. My daughter accidentally installed the wrong bit-depth driver for her new Sony camera on a Sony Vista laptop, and that was all she wrote. The damn thing crashed and wouldn't even boot. I had to build an XP boot disc with OS and repair utilities on it, to get to the repair partition and roll it back to factory state. That same laptop, in her husband's care, just got worse and worse under Vista (he's a video and projection tech and used it as his work machine) until I got it from them and put Win7 on it - which pretty well squared it away. Eventually I wound up having to brain-wipe it and put a clean 7 on, and now it runs Win 10 TP (quite smartly, I might add) but WinVista was an unmitigated disaster on it. Likewise, both my old home tower and my wife's (mine X86 and hers X64) were never any good under Vista and required Win7 to put them right.
So no one should try to pretend that WinVista, in any but the most exceptional circumstances, was anything like a "solid" OS. It was awful. It was resource-hungry, touchy, fragile, and temperamental - something even its authors could not love.
I really have never had those issues. I know other people did but they were almost computer illiterate. people who knew how to turn on the machine and use a browser that's about it. Yes I admint it was a resourse was a bit resourse hungry, but I never had any issues with it, (apart from getting drivers when it was first released). saying that No I would not pick it over 7 or 8, it is a lesser Operating system in comparison. Still all the issues I hear you speak of, Never had them and it's still running quite nicely on my fathers machine now. I upgrade my computers every 2-4 years and give the old ones to family. My father who can use a computer to use the net has also had no issues with it.
Back on the 32bit argument…..
I do see what people are saying about there being a large 32bit usage out there still. I would not agree with abandoning them, I also don't agree with dragging the use of 32bit software on and on when 64bit has already been out for so many years.
There are two logical views here and both are valid and conflict.
1. There are still to many people using the outdated 32bit software
2. 64bit has been around for so long now it makes no sense to keep on with 32bit.I know some of you bitch about my view on this, but in the life of computers 64bit has
been around for a lifetime. Technology moves at light speed while this 32bit issue
feels like it's standing still. progress is moving at snale pace. -
1. There are still to many people using the outdated 32bit software
There is no outdated SW.
There is SW that meet your need and SW that does not.
"I really have never had those issues."
this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule :lol:
-
1. There are still to many people using the outdated 32bit software
There is no outdated SW.
There is SW that meet your need and SW that does not.
"I really have never had those issues."
this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule :lol:
I can see some of you will argue till you are blue in the face. So back on topic. You all should accept that some of us not only I would like a 64bit version and get over yourselves. Hopefully the developers will consider it.
-
You're late - they already did. See today's snapshot.
-
You're late - they already did. See today's snapshot.
I'm still waking up.. lol
thanks for bringing that to my attention.
-
LOL, LOL, LOL and MEGA LOL - even 64bit version installs itself in… "Program Files (x86)" directory. What a 2#$%@ crappy installer.
-
I have downloaded and installed the 64 bit version. It seems to work OK BUT it badly needs extensions added to it. I normally use ABP , Ghostery, and Last Pass on my browsers. I opened my email account and was met with tons of ads that I don't normally see. I normally use DuckDuckGo as my search engine and it wasn't any problem to change my search engine in Vivaldi. My spell checker even works OK in Vivaldi.
-
So yeah, had to try the 64bit version. As expected, the only noticeable difference from the 32bit version is that it consumes a gig of memory more (in my case 5.5GB instead of 4.5GB). Otherwise I wouldn't be able to tell the two apart.
So, just like any other 64bit browser on Windows so far.
-
So yeah, had to try the 64bit version. As expected, the only noticeable difference from the 32bit version is that it consumes a gig of memory more (in my case 5.5GB instead of 4.5GB). Otherwise I wouldn't be able to tell the two apart.
So, just like any other 64bit browser on Windows so far.
Wow. I'm just shocked, I tell you. Shocked. Who could have guessed that what we knew about software yesterday, could still be true today? Astonishing.
-
I know. A shocker indeed.
Then again, I laughed my ass off realizing that it took Opera over a year to even come up with a 64bit Linux version. 32bit Linux version is still nowhere to be seen (the official solution is to use Opera 12.16), as well as the 64bit version for Windows.
Vivaldi offered 64bit Linux version with its first public release. Adding 32bit Linux version took 3 weeks, adding 64bit Windows version took 4 weeks.
I sure hope they know what they're doing and are not wasting resources that could be put to better use on this, but when you think about this, it's kinda hilarious (and sad at the same time).
-
LOL, LOL, LOL and MEGA LOL - even 64bit version installs itself in… "Program Files (x86)" directory. What a 2#$%@ crappy installer.
As I said earlier, recompliling a SW for windows is not just matter of changing a compiler flag, there are a lot of subtle obstacles, this is one of them.
-
I know. A shocker indeed.
Then again, I laughed my ass off realizing that it took Opera over a year to even come up with a 64bit Linux version. 32bit Linux version is still nowhere to be seen (the official solution is to use Opera 12.16), as well as the 64bit version for Windows.
Vivaldi offered 64bit Linux version with its first public release. Adding 32bit Linux version took 3 weeks, adding 64bit Windows version took 4 weeks.
I sure hope they know what they're doing and are not wasting resources that could be put to better use on this, but when you think about this, it's kinda hilarious (and sad at the same time).
I'm sure vivaldi is putting some pepper on the "back" of Opium guys.
As usual competition is good for all of the parts involved.