topic Re: 64-bit integration in Modeling

64-bit integration

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:56:08 GMT

Hi,

I understand that this may have been touched on before, but I am currently looking at changing my GUI from XP Pro 32-bit to XP 64-bit. I was wondering if anyone had come across any problems running any of the following, and if so what problems did you encounter.

ArchiCAD 10
MaxonForm
Artlantis Studio v1.25
Photoshop CS3

I also aim to upgrade to a Duo or Quad core with 4Gig ram. Anybody know of conflicts with either of these aswell.

Thanking all in advance for their input and opinions

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:00:53 GMT

Hi,
I have been using 64 bit XP for 6 months or so. There seem to be no adverse effects as far as Archicad goes. I can use all available ram obviously.

There could be problems with drivers for plotters/ printers / scanners / etc. Check on that.

The other problem is that I cannot use Acrhicad 9 in 64bit. I have to use it in a 32bit environment.

As far as Core Duo, I like my chip a lot (E6700). It works very well and has sped things up considerably. I have mine running @ 3.4 Ghz and it runs incredibly stable.

Photoshop seems to run great but I only have CS2. I imagine CS3 will have no problems. No experience with the other software

Re: 64-bit integration

Karl Ottenstein — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:00:40 GMT

Chris wrote:
I understand that this may have been touched on before, but I am currently looking at changing my GUI from XP Pro 32-bit to XP 64-bit.

It's not the GUI that you would be switching.

Anyway, all users - XP/Vista and Mac - may find this article on 64-bit drivers interesting:
http://news.com.com/64-bit+PCs+Drivers+wanted/2100-1003_3-6200517.html?tag=nefd.top
[I have no plans personally to go to Vista - am ditching Microsoft and switching to Mac instead - but the comment in there about Vista shipping as only 32-bit is interesting. Can it really be true that Vista users have to order a 64-bit DVD from Microsoft?!]

Specific to ArchiCAD on XP-64, see this archicadwiki article:
http://www.archicadwiki.com/Windows_XP_64-bit_edition

also this generic 64 bit article:
http://www.archicadwiki.com/64-bit

Karl

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 01:09:53 GMT

Ah yes,
I forgot to mention the problem with Amyuni PDF not working in 64 bit with Archicad !0. That was pretty big. Now I am using AC11 and it works very well.

Re: 64-bit integration

KeesW — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:45:58 GMT

I am running 2 quad core computers with Vista 64 and 4GB RAM. Archicad 11 runs very well - apparently slightly faster than the very latest 8 core Mac. However, there are limitations with peripheral drivers. I've had to upgrade my HP scanner and bought an HP Officejet Pro 7580. It works well, but a 64 bit driver for the scanner part, whilst listed as being available, is defective and I am expecting a revised version from HP this week.

If you are thinking of changing, check the drivers you need and make sure that they are available.

Re: 64-bit integration

Stephen Dolbee — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:07:57 GMT

Karl wrote:
[I have no plans personally to go to Vista - am ditching Microsoft and switching to Mac instead

Karl,

I also am thinking of switching to Mac. Would you mind sharing your reasons for the switch?

Thanks,
Steve

Re: 64-bit integration

Karl Ottenstein — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:35:15 GMT

OFF TOPIC...

Stephen wrote:
I also am thinking of switching to Mac. Would you mind sharing your reasons for the switch?

Hi Steve,

I'll probably always have both to support clients, but the switch will make a Mac my primary machine. The main reasons are:

- the amount of time wasted maintaining a Windows machine because of Microsoft's direct and indirect screw-ups (and I've been with them since original DOS and Windows 3.0) - losing on average 4 productive days per year per machine to maintenance / reinstallation

- the amount of time wasted cleaning off all of the junk installed on a new Windows computer by the manufacturer: demo software, junk software, advertising, etc

- the number of features dropped from Vista combined with the problems with existing features and lack of device drivers after many slipped deadlines - but most important the big resource hog that Vista is to obtain an interface not that different than Mac OS on much older, lower power equipment

- the questionable stability / security and design 'sense' of the core of XP / Vista (part of why things crash and have weird interactions) compared with the solid Unix (Mach) / Darwin core of OS X

- simple things like pausable/resumable downloads, particularly of software updates on OS X out of the box (need download manager on XP - but cannot use it with 'Windows Update'- tedious process to find Microsoft download site)...

- Spotlight, Expose and more on OS X - big time savers

- the amount of open source Unix software that works with OS X, and which is included with it (of more interest to developers, perhaps)

- solid hardware design from Apple, in particular the PowerMac in terms of cooling, cable runs, and multiprocessor support etc compared to the typical (every?) PC.

Until Apple switched to Intel, I felt that Macs were way underpowered in a bang-for-the-buck sense compared to a PC. Apple seems ahead now, IMHO, for the PowerMac, particularly if you beef up the memory and disks from 3rd parties.

There are still a handful of things that I prefer about the Windows interface, and which I prefer about Windows Explorer compared to OS X Finder in particular, but there are 3rd party tools for OS X to provide what I would miss...

Waiting for Leopard before moving over though...and wishing they would manufacture somewhere other than China, or at least be certified as 'ethically manufactured' (somewhat like 'fair trade' commodity certification). I get a kick out of the boxes: 'Designed by Apple in California' in huge letters; 'Made in China' in fine print.

Karl

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:57:57 GMT

Karl wrote:
- the amount of time wasted maintaining a Windows machine because of Microsoft's direct and indirect screw-ups (and I've been with them since original DOS and Windows 3.0) - losing on average 4 productive days per year per machine to maintenance / reinstallation

ditto...

Always made me laugh/grimace when people would claim that PCs were "cheaper"

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:43:59 GMT

OK My son's MacBook pro arrived today and besides the fact that he has to package it up and send it back because the DVD R/W doesn't work, I was impressed with the way the machined started, shut down and loaded programs very fast. Also the general way he was able to move around on the machine seemed very comfortable. I see that additional software is available to run Win XP for window programs.

I use several programs, Structural analysis, estimating and construction management software that isn't written for Mac OS.

Do any of you know if this software works well on the Mac and if I could run Archicad on the Mac OS and the other programs on the Win With XP at the same time?

Thanks,

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:58:09 GMT

Mark, the really great thing about Apple using Intel chips, and their choice to release windows drivers for Apple machines, is that you don't have to put up with slow and buggy (and expensive) emulators to run Windows software on an Apple machine.

What you do need to own (or buy) is a legitimate copy of Windows - XP/ Vista etc.

Then there is the choice of how to use it:

1. Apple provides "boot camp". Once this is installed you can install your copy of Windows, and then, whenever you start your Apple you can choose between going into the Mac OS X or (your copy) of Windows.

Good=Boot camp is free, and all the resources of your PC are dedicated to the OS running at that time.

Bad= Cannot run at the same time as Mac OS X (must restart machine to switch between OSes)

2. Spend more on 'Parallels' or 'Fusion'. These software(s) allow you to run both OSes concurrently! In your MacOS X dock you can have an application running natively in windows!

Good=No restart delays switching between OSes. Can stay in the MacOSX environment the whole time!

Bad= Costs more. When both OSes are running it uses more resources. The new core 2 chips are built for such concurrency in mind (virtualisation if you want the tech term) but there is always a cost in performance.

Good luck

Re: 64-bit integration

stefan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:57:58 GMT

What about graphics acceleration? Is there hardware supported 3D display in Fusion or Parallels? Or do you need to boot into Windows to have that supported?

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:17:55 GMT

rwallis wrote:
Mark, the really great thing about Apple using Intel chips, and their choice to release windows drivers for Apple machines, is that you don't have to put up with slow and buggy (and expensive) emulators to run Windows software on an Apple machine.

What you do need to own (or buy) is a legitimate copy of Windows - XP/ Vista etc.

Then there is the choice of how to use it:

1. Apple provides "boot camp". Once this is installed you can install your copy of Windows, and then, whenever you start your Apple you can choose between going into the Mac OS X or (your copy) of Windows.

Good=Boot camp is free, and all the resources of your PC are dedicated to the OS running at that time.

Bad= Cannot run at the same time as Mac OS X (must restart machine to switch between OSes)

2. Spend more on 'Parallels' or 'Fusion'. These software(s) allow you to run both OSes concurrently! In your MacOS X dock you can have an application running natively in windows!

Good=No restart delays switching between OSes. Can stay in the MacOSX environment the whole time!

Bad= Costs more. When both OSes are running it uses more resources. The new core 2 chips are built for such concurrency in mind (virtualisation if you want the tech term) but there is always a cost in performance.

Good luck

Robert,

Thanks for the comments. The only issue that has me torn now is that I had my heart (and eyes) set on a 20.1 inch display. Do you ave any insider (or outsider) information on the possibility of Mac releasing a 20.1 MacBook? I would be willing to wait if this were the case.

Thanks

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:16:32 GMT

Mark wrote:
The only issue that has me torn now is that I had my heart (and eyes) set on a 20.1 inch display. Do you ave any insider (or outsider) information on the possibility of Mac releasing a 20.1 MacBook? I would be willing to wait if this were the case.

Which 20.1" laptop do you mean? From what I've seen the 20.1" screens have the same resolution as my old MacBook Pro (1680x1050) so what's the point? To sit farther from your laptop? The new Macs have an option for an even higher res. Personally I would go for the higher resolution in the smaller package and add a 23" or 30" display when I really want room play.

PS. I doubt Apple would make a 20" MacBook unless it also increases resolution.

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:27:09 GMT

[Which 20.1" laptop do you mean?

There are several on the market. Hypersonic, HP HDX andVoodoo, Seger, etc. I want it for more real estate. Simply increasing resolution on a small screen always makes graphics hard to read for me. And I want to remain mobile with a 20.1" Laptop.

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:38:35 GMT

Mark wrote:
[Which 20.1" laptop do you mean?

There are several on the market. Hypersonic, HP HDX andVoodoo, Seger, etc. I want it for more real estate. Simply increasing resolution on a small screen always makes graphics hard to read for me. And I want to remain mobile with a 20.1" Laptop.

...but without more pixels you're just enlarging the same image. It seems easier to carry a spare pair of glasses than to lug around a bigger laptop.

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:52:24 GMT

...but without more pixels you're just enlarging the same image. It seems easier to carry a spare pair of glasses than to lug around a bigger laptop.

OK, I will investigate this a bit more. As soon as my son's MacBook Pro is returned I will try it out to see if this is the answer for me.

Thanks

Re: 64-bit integration

Karl Ottenstein — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:30:52 GMT

An updated review / benchmark comparing OS X, Bootcamp, Parallels, Fusion and CrossOver on an 8-core Intel Mac:

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9760910-1.html?tag=nefd.lede

Re: 64-bit integration

Rakela Raul — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:14:10 GMT

thanku K.O. v. good info

Re: 64-bit integration

KeesW — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:45:36 GMT

I have encountered a real problem with Vist 64 and ArchiCad 11. It won't run VR views (sorry I can't think of the correct term but I am in the UK about 12,000 miles from my computer and manual. Its the views generated by putting a dome over the building and creating a view at each intersection of a radial and a parallel division). I can generate the views but can't play them. It generates an error message and it is, apparently, a Quicktime compatibility problem affecting PC's (not Macs).

I don't know if it also affects 32 bit Vista - could someone try it?

Re: 64-bit integration

Anonymous — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:26:29 GMT

It wont affect 32bit Vista because its a Quicktime VR compatibility issue that affects 64bit Windows Machines only.

The issue is the Developers of Quicktime VR have yet to develop a 64Bit compatible version of the QTVR plugin. It sometimes works for some users but sporadically at best.

If you want to affect change on this issue, you should really be writing to the Developers of the QTVR plugin. IF enough people ask eventually developers have to create it, but they need to be sure the user demand is there in the first place.