Re: %#@*!@* grumble, back to installing "32-bit" apps from scratch

In article <1iyhh9o.11afyit1jelnb5N%dempson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David
Empson <dempson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

See David Empon's posts for the reasons why.

Who? :-)

Hi again David,

Sorry if I got it wrong about 64-bit stuff.

All this is very confusing for a non-geek,
as are the overwhelming number of Mac users,
me included.

Please do not feel obliged to explain any of
this, as it is my problem, not yours.

Heck, I figure I am ahead of the game if I can
even remember my own name when I wake up
in the morning.

That said, here are the things that (still)
puzzle me about 64-bit stuff, in no particular
order of importance.

All these points relate to speed-of-execution,
NOT the ability to access huge amounts of ram.

1) (this is going to be a long one) - - -
I have a 32-bit app, everyone agrees it is a
32-bit app, it runs fine on a Vista 32-bit OS.

If I try running that 32-bit app on a Vista
64-bit OS it refuses to run. That makes sense.

HOWEVER, I have a Mac 64-bit OS, but I informed
that all my Mac apps are really 32-bit apps.
THAT makes no sense at all.

What earthly good is a Mac 64-bit OS
(as regards speed-of-execution) if there are no
64-bit apps available to run on it?

2) If the Mac 64-bit OS is so useless, is Apple only
using it to access more than 3GB of ram?

3) If there were "true 64-bit" applications for Mac,
could they run faster than present 32-bit apps run?

25 years from now, if Apple is still in business, we
might have 128-bit Macs. To my simplistic way of
thinking, the wider the data path, the faster the speed.

If we move our data through a 32-bit soda straw, it is
going to take a long time to move vast quantities of
data to the CPU for processing.

This will slow the speed-of-execution of the app.