Quantcast

ICD3 and Windows 7

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

ICD3 and Windows 7

zipwize
I've done another dumb thing. I purchased the ICD3 expecting it to work with Windows 7. I figured Microchip was a reputable company and they would want their products work with all operating systems especially the latest versions. I expected it to work especially when Microchip's website tells us to buy the ICD3 for new development since future micro-controllers may not be supported by the ICD2. I followed the installation instructions for MPLAB V8.36 and found that Windows could not find a USB driver when I manually browsed to C:\Program Files (x86)\Microchip\MPLAB IDE\ICD3\Drivers. Notice that I'm running the Windows 7 proffesional XP mode. I upgraded to MPLAB V8.50 and still could not find a driver. I looked through all the forum messages in the Microchip support forum and posted a message. But there is no reply from several weeks now. I opened a support ticket last week on the direct support requests. I still don't have a response.

Perhaps there is someone in the PICList who has the ICD3 working in Windows 7. If so, I would like to know where the driver was found and what they did to get the ICD3 recognized. I think if I knew where the driver was, or where to download it, then I could get the ICD3 to work. I understand the the later ICD2 versions use a Cypress USB chip that is not supported with a Windows 7 driver. Any evidence the the ICD3 works with Windows 7 would be appreciated.

I really regret the alternative of maintaining my 8 year old XP system just to write code on.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Michael Watterson
[hidden email] wrote:
> I've done another dumb thing. I purchased the ICD3 expecting it to work with Windows 7. I figured Microchip was a reputable company and they would want their products work with all operating systems especially the latest versions.
>
> I really regret the alternative of maintaining my 8 year old XP system just to write code on.
>  
Windows 7 is a great advance over Vista. However other than support for
a few games that absolutely need the latest Direct X / Direct 3D, it
offers no advantages and many disadvantages to Windows XP.

I've never even re-installed my XP in 8 years. My newer computers have
multiboot and my 8 year old laptop outperforms Atom running XP or
Windows 7 or Ubuntu.

The problem is Microsoft, not Microchip. There is limited backward
compatibility in Win7 with XP for actually no increase in performance
and no genuine increase in Security (In 1998 I was installing fully
locked down virus immune NT 4.0 workstations with remote
Administration). In fact the only reason we upgraded our NT4.0 server to
Win2000 Server a couple of years ago was to have WSUS patches for all
our Windows XP rather than each user separately downloading. The Win2K
server has also php, Apache and mySQL to test stuff before it's put on
remote Linux hosting as well as the native IIS .asp and MS-SQL.

I just replaced the built in keyboard on my 8 year old laptop
(1600x1200, 1.8GHz, 120Gbyte HHD, DVD writer, real serial, parallel &
firewire. USB2.0 via PCMCIA, USB1.1 built in). The lads joked that it
would now last another 16 years. My previous laptop (still working) was
2000, yet only a PIII 450 with WFW3.11 & NT4.0 dual boot. It now has
DOS/WFW3.11, DOS/Win98SE, Win2K and Ubuntu (some Motorola Radios need
real DOS and some Setboxes need real Win9x for serial programming new
firmware/channels).

Really the last 8 years (2002 to 2010) has seen much less need (or none)
to upgrade or replace good spec HW and well installed SW than previous
eight years (1993 to  2001).  1993  I  was  using a  33MHz  486  with  
win 3.11 and  4M  RAM.  My last desktop PC upgrade was an AMD 64 2.4GHz
with 1G RAM, and ATI X1600 nearly 4 years ago. It's still got same
1600x1200 approx 19" DELL CRT.




--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

WH Tan
In reply to this post by zipwize
Are you using 64-bit Windows 7?
64-bit version uses the driver inside the folder "Driver64".

Best regards,

--
WH Tan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Isaac Marino Bavaresco
In reply to this post by Michael Watterson
Em 9/5/2010 12:44, Michael Watterson escreveu:

> [hidden email] wrote:
>  
>> I've done another dumb thing. I purchased the ICD3 expecting it to work with Windows 7. I figured Microchip was a reputable company and they would want their products work with all operating systems especially the latest versions.
>>
>> I really regret the alternative of maintaining my 8 year old XP system just to write code on.
>>  
>>    
> Windows 7 is a great advance over Vista. However other than support for
> a few games that absolutely need the latest Direct X / Direct 3D, it
> offers no advantages and many disadvantages to Windows XP.
>
> I've never even re-installed my XP in 8 years. My newer computers have
> multiboot and my 8 year old laptop outperforms Atom running XP or
> Windows 7 or Ubuntu.
>
> The problem is Microsoft, not Microchip. There is limited backward
> compatibility in Win7 with XP for actually no increase in performance
> and no genuine increase in Security (In 1998 I was installing fully
> locked down virus immune NT 4.0 workstations with remote
> Administration). In fact the only reason we upgraded our NT4.0 server to
> Win2000 Server a couple of years ago was to have WSUS patches for all
> our Windows XP rather than each user separately downloading. The Win2K
> server has also php, Apache and mySQL to test stuff before it's put on
> remote Linux hosting as well as the native IIS .asp and MS-SQL.
>
> I just replaced the built in keyboard on my 8 year old laptop
> (1600x1200, 1.8GHz, 120Gbyte HHD, DVD writer, real serial, parallel &
> firewire. USB2.0 via PCMCIA, USB1.1 built in). The lads joked that it
> would now last another 16 years. My previous laptop (still working) was
> 2000, yet only a PIII 450 with WFW3.11 & NT4.0 dual boot. It now has
> DOS/WFW3.11, DOS/Win98SE, Win2K and Ubuntu (some Motorola Radios need
> real DOS and some Setboxes need real Win9x for serial programming new
> firmware/channels).
>
> Really the last 8 years (2002 to 2010) has seen much less need (or none)
> to upgrade or replace good spec HW and well installed SW than previous
> eight years (1993 to  2001).  1993  I  was  using a  33MHz  486  with  
> win 3.11 and  4M  RAM.  My last desktop PC upgrade was an AMD 64 2.4GHz
> with 1G RAM, and ATI X1600 nearly 4 years ago. It's still got same
> 1600x1200 approx 19" DELL CRT.
>  

That's a normal consequence of the technological enhancement.

First, we had 8-bit computers that could address 64k bytes (usually),
then 16-bit ones that could address 1M or 16M.
When we moved to real 32-bit (386DX, 68020), the (theoretical) limit was
4G bytes, which is until now enough for most people.

The 64-bit machines are pushing this limit to values that nobody knows
when it will be reached (or needed to be broken).

The next step (no pun intended) would be necessary only when the
computers become intelligent and we all are extinct :)


Regards,

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/ 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Michael Watterson
Isaac Marino Bavaresco wrote:

>
>
> That's a normal consequence of the technological enhancement.
>
> First, we had 8-bit computers that could address 64k bytes (usually),
> then 16-bit ones that could address 1M or 16M.
> When we moved to real 32-bit (386DX, 68020), the (theoretical) limit was
> 4G bytes, which is until now enough for most people.
>
> The 64-bit machines are pushing this limit to values that nobody knows
> when it will be reached (or needed to be broken).
>
> The next step (no pun intended) would be necessary only when the
> computers become intelligent and we all are extinct :)
>
>  
However most applications see no benefit from a 64 bit CPU, and for some
applications 64bit x64 architecture CPU is poorer. It's now more about
marketing and style than any need for performance for most consumers.

Only a few poorly written games and  a poorly written OS, for consumer
workstation/laptop needs more than 512M

Also 16bits vs 32 bits vs 64bit can be quite independent of address
space. Some 8 bit PIC can address 2Mbyte rather than 64K of 8085. NT4.0
Enterprise edition was able to use 4GByte on servers. Most consumer
64bit CPU laptops/desktops can only have 3Gbyte RAM in use. Most of the
last 1Gbyte isn't actually addressable.  In reality we have had prettier
(in some minds) GUIs since 1993 but little genuine advance in OS. (NT3.1
and 1st Linux Kernel 1993, Linux & OS X are essentially 1976 OS designs
and NT (currently Windows 7) has its genesis in VMS and OS/2.

Don't fall for the Hype.  I'm happy though that prices have fallen
dramatically in the last 8 years for PC hardware. Though it's harder to
get a portable LCD suitable for PDFs, DTP and programming than 4 years
ago. The Manufacturers seem  convinced we  all  use laptops instead  of
proper  TV sets  to watch Video  (in the  dark  with  no lights reflect
off the hyper shiny screens) instead of creation and editing of information.

In the high street store a few laptops were massive 1920x1080 (not even
1200 line anymore) and most 1366x768 or less widescreen. For a portable
workstation or laptop for work rather than video consumption, that's a
step backward from 1600 x 1200. If they even tilted to give portrat, it
would be slightly something. If I was going to have about 17" to 18"
LCD, I'd expect by now to get 2 x A4 pages or 1 x A3 page in good enough
resolution to read it.  I know in USA you use slightly fatter & shorter
"Letter Size", but still, a 17" 1366x 768 is not ideal.

Perhaps since I started with ICL George and punched cards, and then
Apple IIe with UCSD-p-system and 8" drives up till 2000 / 2003 was great
advances. I now simply don't see any value to spending money  on  
iCore7  quad 64bit  with 4G RAM and Windows  7.  It will not let me do  
anything better than  my 8 year old 1600x1200 15.4" ish 1.8GHz XP
laptop,  My 64bit workstation doesn't. In fact a lot of my applications
won't run on Win7.

If I want to play more advanced games I'd buy an Xbox 360 & PS3


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Adam Field
> In the high street store a few laptops were massive 1920x1080 (not even
> 1200 line anymore) and most 1366x768 or less widescreen. For a portable
> workstation or laptop for work rather than video consumption, that's a
> step backward from 1600 x 1200. If they even tilted to give portrat, it
> would be slightly something. If I was going to have about 17" to 18"
> LCD, I'd expect by now to get 2 x A4 pages or 1 x A3 page in good enough
> resolution to read it.  I know in USA you use slightly fatter & shorter
> "Letter Size", but still, a 17" 1366x 768 is not ideal.

I'm getting along with a 1366x768 display currently. It's also one of
these super reflective screens. Prior to this I was using an old Dell
C840 with a 1600x1200 screen. I've learned to live with it, not only
because I don't use my laptop outside so the glare isn't a problem,
but by also moving my task bar (Linux and Win7 both) to the left hand
side of the screen. Also, disabling toolbars, like the Favorites bar
in my web browser has helped me reclaim my vertical space.

I would have fixed my old laptop, but the parts were only available
used, and they were half the cost (at the time, I guess I could wait
for a random ebay auction to crop up) of a new replacement laptop that
is MUCH quicker, with a lot more memory and storage. But the screen
sucks. Oh well.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

zipwize
In reply to this post by zipwize

Yes, This is the 64 bit Window 7 and I did look the the Driver64 folder.

It contains the following files:

Win7_64 (Folder with a few .jpeg and .gif files)
mchpusb
mchpusb
mchpusb.sys
mchpusb64.sys
ReadMe

The read me file contains:

=============================================================================
ReadMe.txt
=============================================================================
31 Mar 2008 - PRJ 21 Jul 2009 - EAM
14 Oct 2008 - EAM 30 Nov 2009 - EAM
13 Apr 2009 - EAM
=============================================================================

64-BIT DRIVERS
--------------

Use these drivers for 64-bit Windows operating systems only, i.e.:
* Windows XP 64
* Windows Vista 64
* Windows 7 64

NOTE: Operation will require the new, modified MPLBCOMM dll found in
MPLAB IDE v8.14 and higher.

For all 32-bit Windows OSs, use the drivers found in the specific tool
directory. For example:

C:\Program Files\Microchip\MPLAB IDE\REAL ICE\Drivers

INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS (in HTML)
-----------------------------------

Windows 64-bit OSs:
In the OS-specific subdirectory of this directory.

Windows 32-bit OSs:
In the specific-tool directory, in the Drivers subdirectory.


When I browse to C: Program Files (x86)\Microchip\MPLAB IDE\Drivers64\Win7_64
I get the message "Please enter another location" and "The location you specified does not contain any driver software installation files."

Again, I am stuck. On the plus side, the ICD3 works fine on the Windows XP system. I'm able to work with it. But the goal is to get Windows 7 to recognize a USB driver.



----- Original Message -----
From: "WH Tan" <[hidden email]>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 12:32:22 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [PIC] ICD3 and Windows 7

Are you using 64-bit Windows 7?
64-bit version uses the driver inside the folder "Driver64".

Best regards,

--
WH Tan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist 
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Michael Watterson
In reply to this post by Adam Field
Adam Field wrote:
> I'm getting along with a 1366x768 display currently. It's also one of
> these super reflective screens. Prior to this I was using an old Dell
> C840 with a 1600x1200 screen. I've learned to live with it, not only
> because I don't use my laptop outside so the glare isn't a problem,
> but by also moving my task bar (Linux and Win7 both) to the left hand
> side of the screen. Also, disabling toolbars, like the Favorites bar
> in my web browser has helped me reclaim my vertical space.
>
>  
I have done all that (and floating toolbars to side in appropriate apps).
> I would have fixed my old laptop, but the parts were only available
> used, and they were half the cost (at the time, I guess I could wait
> for a random ebay auction to crop up) of a new replacement laptop that
> is MUCH quicker, with a lot more memory and storage. But the screen
> sucks. Oh well.
>
>  
You have my sympathy. Also the 2nd hand laptops with UXGA are madly
overpriced on eBay. Some are a bad idea (Sony Viao with Mobile P4, NOT
P4M, running 3.06GHz. That's a painful 75W I think for the CPU system
compared with 30W for 1.8GHz P4M. That's as fast as P4 family ever got
on Laptops. I wonder how it's cooled? It must have a 120W  or 150W PSU
given screen size/resolution and the GPU it has. 2hrs battery or savage
downclocking?

Actually when I was doing a bunch of SQL/IIS/VB6 Client/Server stuff
about 6 to 7 years ago  I  used a  1600x1200 CRT  as extra  desktop  
beside  the 1600x1200 laptop (the  built  in VGA  supports this).

I'm thinking the solution is a  Micro ITX case and  a standalone  LCD
that is 12V with external PSU.  Use a  suitable customised
briefcase/portfolio case and 12V ATX PSU (like car modders use). One
advantage with our erratic electric of laptop is the "built in" UPS :-)
. 12V  Gel or 10 x NiMH C  cells x 2 in the briefcase/ portfolio case.

Then I can have a decent  widescreen (1920x1200), or maybe a pair of
cheap 1366 x768 15" widescreens side by side  in Portrait mode (1536 x
1366) as 16:10 widescreens are mostly replaced now by 1920 x1080 16:9




--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Xiaofan Chen
In reply to this post by zipwize
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:10 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Notice that I'm running the Windows 7 proffesional XP mode.
> I upgraded to MPLAB V8.50 and still could not find a driver.
>
> Perhaps there is someone in the PICList who has the ICD3
> working in Windows 7.

ICD 3 works fine under my Windows 7 64bit (Home Premimum).
I do not have the Win7 professional so that I do not have the
XP mode.

Did you see ICD 3 in the Device Manager? Take note it
will not show ICD 3, but Custom USB Device --> Microchip
Custom Device, and the driver used is mchpusb64.sys.

I will suggest you try the native Win 7 first before trying
the XP mode. MPLAB and main stream Microchip tools
works fine under Win 7 64bit.


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Xiaofan Chen
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Xiaofan Chen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:10 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Notice that I'm running the Windows 7 proffesional XP mode.
>> I upgraded to MPLAB V8.50 and still could not find a driver.
>>
>> Perhaps there is someone in the PICList who has the ICD3
>> working in Windows 7.
>
> ICD 3 works fine under my Windows 7 64bit (Home Premimum).
> I do not have the Win7 professional so that I do not have the
> XP mode.
>
> Did you see ICD 3 in the Device Manager? Take note it
> will not show ICD 3, but Custom USB Device --> Microchip
> Custom Device, and the driver used is mchpusb64.sys.
>
> I will suggest you try the native Win 7 first before trying
> the XP mode. MPLAB and main stream Microchip tools
> works fine under Win 7 64bit.
>

For the XP mode. I will think it is a 32 bit, so I think
that you need to point the driver to the 32bit driver
directory.


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

zipwize
In reply to this post by Xiaofan Chen
I forced the device driver to use the mchpusb64.sys and it worked in the Win 7 64 bit Prof. XP mode. That was the information I needed. I don't know why the device driver wasn't named in the documentation.

Thank you for this information. I'm on my way again.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Xiaofan Chen" <[hidden email]>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, May 9, 2010 7:19:46 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [PIC] ICD3 and Windows 7

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 11:10 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Notice that I'm running the Windows 7 proffesional XP mode.
> I upgraded to MPLAB V8.50 and still could not find a driver.
>
> Perhaps there is someone in the PICList who has the ICD3
> working in Windows 7.

ICD 3 works fine under my Windows 7 64bit (Home Premimum).
I do not have the Win7 professional so that I do not have the
XP mode.

Did you see ICD 3 in the Device Manager? Take note it
will not show ICD 3, but Custom USB Device --> Microchip
Custom Device, and the driver used is mchpusb64.sys.

I will suggest you try the native Win 7 first before trying
the XP mode. MPLAB and main stream Microchip tools
works fine under Win 7 64bit.


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com 
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist 
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Xiaofan Chen
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:11 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I forced the device driver to use the mchpusb64.sys and it worked in
> the Win 7 64 bit Prof. XP mode. That was the information I needed.
> I don't know why the device driver wasn't named in the documentation.
>
> Thank you for this information. I'm on my way again.
>

Glad that you solved the issue. It is also quite nice that you updated
your post in the Microchip forum. Thanks.
http://www.microchip.com/forums/fb.aspx?m=498957


--
Xiaofan http://mcuee.blogspot.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

WH Tan
In reply to this post by zipwize
2010/5/10  <[hidden email]>:
>
> When I browse to C: Program Files (x86)\Microchip\MPLAB IDE\Drivers64\Win7_64
> I get the message "Please enter another location" and "The location you specified does not contain any driver software installation files."
>

I believe you have to point to C: Program Files (x86)\Microchip\MPLAB
IDE\Drivers64 when asked during the manual installation process.

Best regards,


--
WH Tan
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ICD3 and Windows 7

Herbert Graf-5
In reply to this post by Michael Watterson
On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 19:25 +0100, Michael Watterson wrote:
> However most applications see no benefit from a 64 bit CPU, and for some
> applications 64bit x64 architecture CPU is poorer. It's now more about
> marketing and style than any need for performance for most consumers.
>
> Only a few poorly written games and  a poorly written OS, for consumer
> workstation/laptop needs more than 512M

Sorry, but you are wrong, in many ways.

While I'd agree with "most apps don't need 64bit", the fact is some do.

If you've ever done video work the 2GB of memory available to a process
on a 32bit machine is laughable. I routinely run tasks that require much
more then a 32bit machine could work with, and until 64bit options
became available it was always a case of having to do workarounds to get
the job done (work in small pieces, stich them together, hope everything
remains is in sync, grrr....).

Heck, even when I'm working with photos I routinely hit the 2GB barrier
(open enough photos and have enough layers and memory quickly gets
eaten).

At work it's been years since 2GB is enough, I routinely run tasks that
take dozens of GBs of memory to work.

64bit isn't the future, it's already here.

TTYL



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 64bit (was ICD3 and Windows 7)

Michael Watterson
Herbert Graf wrote:

> On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 19:25 +0100, Michael Watterson wrote:
>  
>> However most applications see no benefit from a 64 bit CPU, and for some
>> applications 64bit x64 architecture CPU is poorer. It's now more about
>> marketing and style than any need for performance for most consumers.
>>
>> Only a few poorly written games and  a poorly written OS, for consumer
>> workstation/laptop needs more than 512M
>>    
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong, in many ways.
>
> While I'd agree with "most apps don't need 64bit", the fact is some do.
>
> If you've ever done video work the 2GB of memory available to a process
> on a 32bit machine is laughable. I routinely run tasks that require much
> more then a 32bit machine could work with, and until 64bit options
> became available it was always a case of having to do workarounds to get
> the job done (work in small pieces, stich them together, hope everything
> remains is in sync, grrr....).
>
> Heck, even when I'm working with photos I routinely hit the 2GB barrier
> (open enough photos and have enough layers and memory quickly gets
> eaten).
>
> At work it's been years since 2GB is enough, I routinely run tasks that
> take dozens of GBs of memory to work.
>
> 64bit isn't the future, it's already here.
>
> TTYL
>
>
>  
you must have extremely large photos and very poor applications. I do
use a 1G RAM Desktop PC for most video edit now, but even with 512M my
laptop is fine. I've never run out of RAM editing photos in last 10 years.

Some applications need 64bit. Video Editing and photo editing certainly
don't.


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 64bit (was ICD3 and Windows 7)

Wouter van Ooijen
> Only a few poorly written games and  a poorly written OS, for consumer
> workstation/laptop needs more than 512M

Maybe one app needs only 0.5G, but for typical work I USE
- eagle, possibly multiple copies
- at least one IDE, sometimes two (PC and embedded)
- a browser, with lot of tabs and/or windows
- pdf viewer, idem
- sometimes a virtual machine, I'd love to have a few open for comparison!
- my administration, which is probably poorly written because it keeps
everything in memory

The last two are real memory hogs. I don't care about 32 or 64 bit, but
I would love some more GB's!

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 64bit (was ICD3 and Windows 7)

Brendan Gillatt
In reply to this post by Michael Watterson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/05/2010 21:26, Michael Watterson wrote:
> you must have extremely large photos and very poor applications. I do
> use a 1G RAM Desktop PC for most video edit now, but even with 512M my
> laptop is fine. I've never run out of RAM editing photos in last 10 years.
>
> Some applications need 64bit. Video Editing and photo editing certainly
> don't.

I disagree: lets say we have a 15 MPixel camera (15e6 pixels) * by 4
bytes per pixel * 3 layers. That leaves a memory footprint of 180 MiB.
With 2GB of RAM--and ignoring the fairly significant amount of RAM used
by anything other than pixels--we can only open 11 images at a time. I
don't know about you but I work on 20+ images at a time fairly often.

Further, take a 2Mpixel HD video stream * 4 bytes per pixel and you get
8MiB of RAM per frame. At 25 fps, we have 200MiB per second, so 5 seconds
of video can be held in RAM at a time, again ignoring sound channels' and
other applications' usage. I don't delve in video editing much but I can
imagine that having to load video in 5 second chunks comes with a hefty
performance penalty when trying to edit big sections at a time.

I'm pretty keen on the 64bit jump if the software can be caught up. I'm
appalled to hear about the problems the OP had with trying to run 32bit
applications on "cheap" windows, however!

- --
Brendan Gillatt | GPG Key: 0xBF6A0D94
brendan {a} brendangillatt (dot) co (dot) uk
http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvpw/YACgkQHEhZ5Ws5poFz6wCeNP2jhJTUy5l3AwC75L1YH+47
BxwAn0TES7vm2GmAb0NttMlXEHh/UIxU
=nAvD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 64bit (was ICD3 and Windows 7)

Herbert Graf-5
In reply to this post by Michael Watterson
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 21:26 +0100, Michael Watterson wrote:
> you must have extremely large photos and very poor applications. I do
> use a 1G RAM Desktop PC for most video edit now, but even with 512M my
> laptop is fine. I've never run out of RAM editing photos in last 10 years.

GIMP + many cores + plus many layers + plus really big (talking
50-100Mpixel) makes things very interesting. I often run filters on
multiple images at once, letting the cores do their thing. Only have 4GB
on that particular machine and it's been limiting me.

> Some applications need 64bit. Video Editing and photo editing certainly
> don't.

IMHO serious work can easily hit the 2GB limit when doing that work,
video more so then photos, but still.

TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 64bit (was ICD3 and Windows 7)

Michael Watterson
In reply to this post by Wouter van Ooijen
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>> Only a few poorly written games and  a poorly written OS, for consumer
>> workstation/laptop needs more than 512M
>>    
>
> Maybe one app needs only 0.5G, but for typical work I USE
> - eagle, possibly multiple copies
> - at least one IDE, sometimes two (PC and embedded)
> - a browser, with lot of tabs and/or windows
> - pdf viewer, idem
> - sometimes a virtual machine, I'd love to have a few open for comparison!
> - my administration, which is probably poorly written because it keeps
> everything in memory
>
> The last two are real memory hogs. I don't care about 32 or 64 bit, but
> I would love some more GB's!
>
>  
A virtual machine doubles your memory need.  We tried running Linux and
Windows using VM on our home server. It was easier and needed 1G less
ram to run php, Apache and MySQL as native window versions along side on
different IP or ports on  same  netcard and actual Windows OS, with IIS
& MS-SQL which we need also.


I confess I only have two copies Eagle open a short while to cut &
paste. I work normally with just one.  But even 1Tbyte RAM doesn't
"need" a 64bit CPU. It's about architecture  and most 64Bit laptops can
only address 3Gbyte for OS & Apps of 4G RAM.  32bit NT 4.0 enterprise
can address more than 4G on suitable MBs and XP pro 32bit can actually
easily address 2G per application and can use 3G.

A 64bit x64 Intel will use MORE RAM to run the same apps in 64bit
versions too.

I had 512M from 2002 to 2009 in my laptop and then added 256M. I can't
do schematics or programs any faster, nor any faster on 4G Core Duo  my
son has.  His PC plays HD better and more modern games than my AMD64
2400, but that's because of his rather expensive, much newer graphics
card. x64 was started byt AMD marketing and adopted by intel as no-one
loved their 64bit Itanium. In 1997 though there was 64bit NT4.0 for DEC
Alpha64, it didn't sell well. Where is DEC now?

 
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 64bit (was ICD3 and Windows 7)

Michael Watterson
In reply to this post by Brendan Gillatt
Brendan Gillatt wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/05/2010 21:26, Michael Watterson wrote:
>  
>> you must have extremely large photos and very poor applications. I do
>> use a 1G RAM Desktop PC for most video edit now, but even with 512M my
>> laptop is fine. I've never run out of RAM editing photos in last 10 years.
>>
>> Some applications need 64bit. Video Editing and photo editing certainly
>> don't.
>>    
>
> I disagree: lets say we have a 15 MPixel camera (15e6 pixels) * by 4
> bytes per pixel * 3 layers. That leaves a memory footprint of 180 MiB.
> With 2GB of RAM--and ignoring the fairly significant amount of RAM used
> by anything other than pixels--we can only open 11 images at a time. I
> don't know about you but I work on 20+ images at a time fairly often.
>  
That's about available system RAM, not  64 bit apps.   Most  consumer  
PCs/Laptops will only address 3G with a 64CPU

x86 32Bit CPU can address 4G easily and more. You hypothetically could
have a 32bit CPU more efficient than x64 intel/AMD that address 256Gbyte

BTW
How do you see 20+ images that are 15M pixel each at once?
Thumbnails?

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
12
Loading...