From my own experience and other people I know, I don't recommend anyone upgrading to Snow Leopard. Nothing but a big fat headache.
Really? I'd recommend it to anyone. Not a single issue with any of the company machines running 10.6 27" imacs by the way, also without a single issue in their four months of use.
I just came from a coffee shop in Beverly MA, and every laptop was an Apple. That's gotta mean something in an age diverse situation.
Which cafe? Atomic or Trevi? I go to both, and I Macs outnumber PCs every time. Even at a big chain like Panera Macs outnumber PCs almost all the time. As more and more high school and college students get Macs, the greater effect it will have on market share. In my graduate program cohort at Endicott College, 11 of the 14 students have Macs, 2 have PCs (both Dells), and one doesn't own a computer, but uses a Mac at her day job to write her papers. I suspect that is true at a lot of colleges.
LOL, what a biased fanboy. Did you see what your 1st post?
Windows 7 was released just a few months ago. Already surpassing the sorry Mac marketshare
Can you "give it a few quarters"? I guess: No.
His comment didn't state Mac OS X 10.6 installs would surpass Window 7 in a few months. Frankly I don't know why anyone would compare a licensed OS to an OEM-paired OS unless they have an anti-Apple agenda, which in itself makes no sense.
LOL, what a biased fanboy. Did you see what your 1st post?
Windows 7 was released just a few months ago. Already surpassing the sorry Mac marketshare
Can you "give it a few quarters"? I guess: No.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
In any event, Universal Licensing is what it is. I don't think anyone here was comparing SL to Win 7 sales. Nor would it make much sense to do so. Whatever made you post such a remark?
The real story is more complex than vocal Windows users (well, those who aren't complaining) would like to admit. Windows 7's biggest competitor is not OS X. It's Windows XP.
Yes, Microsoft doesn't care because every Win XP sale . . . is a sale, and is $$ in MS' pocket. Well, MS should care. XP was never a very good OS (aesthetics, UI, security, everything), though it was better than what came before. By the time Vista was released it was already an aging dinosaur. By now, it's just a horrible bunch of code. By sometime next year XP will be a decade old. Yuck.
Windows XP constitutes between 60 to 70 percent of the world's computer user base. About two-thirds of XP users do not have hardware new enough to take advantage of Windows 7. Nor is this necessary.
These computers are doing useful functions which wouldn't really benefit by an upgrade. They are old computers running old software which works well enough for occasional business use/running displays/cash registers/light duty use as front ends to mainframes or the web. As such, they are unlikely to be upgraded soon until the hardware breaks. It is not automatic that the owners will buy a new Wintel machine; Apple and Chrome may offer other advantages.
What is most troubling about this story is that 18% of the world's computers were on Vista at Windows 7's release. About half of those had been downgraded to Windows XP. All of those computers should have been upgraded, because Windows Seven offers better security than XP or Vista. But, WIndows Seven's Usage has only moved from 2% to 9% in four months.
This is less than half as fast as Mac users are upgrading to Snow Leopard. Most Mac users tend to upgrade; 93% of Mac Users had upgraded to Leopard in 19 months. Snow Leopard, at current rates, will be at 90% in 12 to 14 months.
This is important because Apple won't move to the 64 bit kernel by default until enough apps have been upgraded to 64 bit code and enough people are already booting into the 64 bit kernel. The main advantage for booting into the 64 bit kernel is enhanced speed, followed by improved security.
The important thing, though, is that the 32 bit Carbon APIs will be rendered legacy, and thus apps in it will be sidelined. The 64 bit Cocoa apps will be much faster and more flexible, so there is little reason for newer machines to use Carbon. The Mac will become fully Object Oriented in five years, when Carbon is gone.
Apple hasn't upgraded all of its own apps to Cocoa yet, but it will before Mac OSX 10.7 is released in 12 to 18 months.
Well, I'm still on Leopard, as I used a PowerMac G5. Also, the last PowerMac's were sold not that long ago, so there will still be quite a few people not upgrading to SL until they get a new mac.
The real story is more complex than vocal Windows users (well, those who aren't complaining) would like to admit. Windows 7's biggest competitor is not OS X. It's Windows XP.
Yes, Microsoft doesn't care because every Win XP sale . . . is a sale, and is $$ in MS' pocket. Well, MS should care. XP was never a very good OS (aesthetics, UI, security, everything), though it was better than what came before. By the time Vista was released it was already an aging dinosaur. By now, it's just a horrible bunch of code. By sometime next year XP will be a decade old. Yuck.
Windows XP constitutes between 60 to 70 percent of the world's computer user base. About two-thirds of XP users do not have hardware new enough to take advantage of Windows 7. Nor is this necessary.
These computers are doing useful functions which wouldn't really benefit by an upgrade. They are old computers running old software which works well enough for occasional business use/running displays/cash registers/light duty use as front ends to mainframes or the web. As such, they are unlikely to be upgraded soon until the hardware breaks. It is not automatic that the owners will buy a new Wintel machine; Apple and Chrome may offer other advantages.
What is most troubling about this story is that 18% of the world's computers were on Vista at Windows 7's release. About half of those had been downgraded to Windows XP. All of those computers should have been upgraded, because Windows Seven offers better security than XP or Vista. But, WIndows Seven's Usage has only moved from 2% to 9% in four months.
This is less than half as fast as Mac users are upgrading to Snow Leopard. Most Mac users tend to upgrade; 93% of Mac Users had upgraded to Leopard in 19 months. Snow Leopard, at current rates, will be at 90% in 12 to 14 months.
This is important because Apple won't move to the 64 bit kernel by default until enough apps have been upgraded to 64 bit code and enough people are already booting into the 64 bit kernel. The main advantage for booting into the 64 bit kernel is enhanced speed, followed by improved security.
The important thing, though, is that the 32 bit Carbon APIs will be rendered legacy, and thus apps in it will be sidelined. The 64 bit Cocoa apps will be much faster and more flexible, so there is little reason for newer machines to use Carbon. The Mac will become fully Object Oriented in five years, when Carbon is gone.
Apple hasn't upgraded all of its own apps to Cocoa yet, but it will before Mac OSX 10.7 is released in 12 to 18 months.
WOW, you made everything so clear! Bravo. Now I understand why Microsoft is loosing money.
The real story is more complex than vocal Windows users (well, those who aren't complaining) would like to admit. Windows 7's biggest competitor is not OS X. It's Windows XP.
Yes, Microsoft doesn't care because every Win XP sale . . . is a sale, and is $$ in MS' pocket. Well, MS should care. XP was never a very good OS (aesthetics, UI, security, everything), though it was better than what came before. By the time Vista was released it was already an aging dinosaur. By now, it's just a horrible bunch of code. By sometime next year XP will be a decade old. Yuck.
Windows XP constitutes between 60 to 70 percent of the world's computer user base. About two-thirds of XP users do not have hardware new enough to take advantage of Windows 7. Nor is this necessary.
These computers are doing useful functions which wouldn't really benefit by an upgrade. They are old computers running old software which works well enough for occasional business use/running displays/cash registers/light duty use as front ends to mainframes or the web. As such, they are unlikely to be upgraded soon until the hardware breaks. It is not automatic that the owners will buy a new Wintel machine; Apple and Chrome may offer other advantages.
What is most troubling about this story is that 18% of the world's computers were on Vista at Windows 7's release. About half of those had been downgraded to Windows XP. All of those computers should have been upgraded, because Windows Seven offers better security than XP or Vista. But, WIndows Seven's Usage has only moved from 2% to 9% in four months.
This is less than half as fast as Mac users are upgrading to Snow Leopard. Most Mac users tend to upgrade; 93% of Mac Users had upgraded to Leopard in 19 months. Snow Leopard, at current rates, will be at 90% in 12 to 14 months.
This is important because Apple won't move to the 64 bit kernel by default until enough apps have been upgraded to 64 bit code and enough people are already booting into the 64 bit kernel. The main advantage for booting into the 64 bit kernel is enhanced speed, followed by improved security.
The important thing, though, is that the 32 bit Carbon APIs will be rendered legacy, and thus apps in it will be sidelined. The 64 bit Cocoa apps will be much faster and more flexible, so there is little reason for newer machines to use Carbon. The Mac will become fully Object Oriented in five years, when Carbon is gone.
Apple hasn't upgraded all of its own apps to Cocoa yet, but it will before Mac OSX 10.7 is released in 12 to 18 months.
In this little rant of yours what you are failing to understand is for every 5 Mac users there are 90 Windows users. So you cant compare OSX upgrade data to Windows data. Also the fact that Netbooks use Windows XP and are big sellers slants the numbers.
Windows 7 sold more copies in pre orders then SL has sold to date.
Windows 7 has been out for two months and it already has a larger install base then SL and Leopard and Tiger combined.
Lets also point out that with a much smaller install base over 20% of Mac users are still running an OS two generations or older.
This is important because Apple won't move to the 64 bit kernel by default until enough apps have been upgraded to 64 bit code and enough people are already booting into the 64 bit kernel. The main advantage for booting into the 64 bit kernel is enhanced speed, followed by improved security. .
Nice post, but one correction. The use of a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel is independent of the app being 32-bit or 64-bit. MS was lazy on this front for their non-server offerings which has somehow imprinted this idea that you need to have a 64-bit OS (read: kernel) to run a 64-bit app.
The only way Apple will move to a 64-bit kernel as default (or the only option) for consumer Macs is if all major drivers and the most common 3rd-party drivers are 64-bit.
While it's still early in the game, my guess is that 10.7 will default to 64-bit for all Macs. Nothing an with a 32-bit CPU (eg: Core Duo) or 32-bit memory addressing (ie: Macs that can only use 3GB RAM) won't be updatable to 10.7... to name a few. You'll be able to boot into 32-bit if needed as this will be a common troubleshooting tip if a peripheral doesn't work. By 10.8 there will be no 32-bit kernel support.
So far, only the improved security is the only advantage for every Mac running in 64-bit over 32-bit. I've seen a few Macs not run as well as 64-bit due to less than stellar 64-bit driver support, often in the GPU.
In this little rant of yours what you are failing to understand is for every 5 Mac users there are 90 Windows users. So you cant compare OSX upgrade data to Windows data. Also the fact that Netbooks use Windows XP and are big sellers slants the numbers.
Windows 7 sold more copies in pre orders then SL has sold to date.
Windows 7 has been out for two months and it already has a larger install base then SL and Leopard and Tiger combined.
Lets also point out that with a much smaller install base over 20% of Mac users are still running an OS two generations or older.
1) Win7 has been out for over 4 months, not 2 months.
2) Good job comparing 5 users from a PC OEM to a 90 OS users that cover every other OEM.
3) Of course Win7 sales are larger than SL sales WHICH IS DESIGNED TO RUN ON INTEL MACS. The number of Win7 Public Beta from nearly 14 months ago likely got installed on more machines than on Macs. Note, the nearly 14 months ago comment.
I upgraded to Snow Leopard because I read that it was to be the foundation for all these great new software programs that would be faster and better. As far as the nuts and bolts are concerned, the only Kernel I'm familiar with is the one with the secret recipe for fried chicken.
And I like to stay current. I figure sooner or later I'm going to want to do something that will require the snowy cat. The price was reasonable too. If it had been $130 I might have passed for now because there were no new features that I felt I needed.
A different story with Leopard. Quick look is a must. I miss it every time I touch a PC. And of course the easy "set it and forget it" time machine. Plus the easier networking with the new finder window.
As far as the problems, I'm confident Apple will release an update that will address any issues. Just as they did with Leopard, Aperture, Mobile Me, etc.
Just a little disappointed that I've had crashes. Glad to hear that it's only me. I bet you guys never have a dropped call or a yellow monitor!
Nice post, but one correction. The use of a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel is independent of the app being 32-bit or 64-bit. MS was lazy on this front for their non-server offerings which has somehow imprinted this idea that you need to have a 64-bit OS (read: kernel) to run a 64-bit app.
The only way Apple will move to a 64-bit kernel as default (or the only option) for consumer Macs is if all major drivers and the most common 3rd-party drivers are 64-bit.
Ah, true. I stand corrected. Your point about drivers is a good one. That is, in many ways, just as critical as app-migration to 64-bit.
Comments
From my own experience and other people I know, I don't recommend anyone upgrading to Snow Leopard. Nothing but a big fat headache.
Really? I'd recommend it to anyone. Not a single issue with any of the company machines running 10.6 27" imacs by the way, also without a single issue in their four months of use.
I just came from a coffee shop in Beverly MA, and every laptop was an Apple. That's gotta mean something in an age diverse situation.
Which cafe? Atomic or Trevi? I go to both, and I Macs outnumber PCs every time. Even at a big chain like Panera Macs outnumber PCs almost all the time. As more and more high school and college students get Macs, the greater effect it will have on market share. In my graduate program cohort at Endicott College, 11 of the 14 students have Macs, 2 have PCs (both Dells), and one doesn't own a computer, but uses a Mac at her day job to write her papers. I suspect that is true at a lot of colleges.
LOL, what a biased fanboy. Did you see what your 1st post?
Windows 7 was released just a few months ago. Already surpassing the sorry Mac marketshare
Can you "give it a few quarters"? I guess: No.
His comment didn't state Mac OS X 10.6 installs would surpass Window 7 in a few months. Frankly I don't know why anyone would compare a licensed OS to an OEM-paired OS unless they have an anti-Apple agenda, which in itself makes no sense.
LOL, what a biased fanboy. Did you see what your 1st post?
Windows 7 was released just a few months ago. Already surpassing the sorry Mac marketshare
Can you "give it a few quarters"? I guess: No.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
In any event, Universal Licensing is what it is. I don't think anyone here was comparing SL to Win 7 sales. Nor would it make much sense to do so. Whatever made you post such a remark?
Already surpassing the sorry Mac marketshare
I suspect that Leopard is still dominant is because there are many Mac users that have not moved to Intel Macs.
You are correct. There are still quite a few pre-Intel Macs around, despite Apple's insistence to the contrary.
Yes, Microsoft doesn't care because every Win XP sale . . . is a sale, and is $$ in MS' pocket. Well, MS should care. XP was never a very good OS (aesthetics, UI, security, everything), though it was better than what came before. By the time Vista was released it was already an aging dinosaur. By now, it's just a horrible bunch of code. By sometime next year XP will be a decade old. Yuck.
Windows XP constitutes between 60 to 70 percent of the world's computer user base. About two-thirds of XP users do not have hardware new enough to take advantage of Windows 7. Nor is this necessary.
These computers are doing useful functions which wouldn't really benefit by an upgrade. They are old computers running old software which works well enough for occasional business use/running displays/cash registers/light duty use as front ends to mainframes or the web. As such, they are unlikely to be upgraded soon until the hardware breaks. It is not automatic that the owners will buy a new Wintel machine; Apple and Chrome may offer other advantages.
What is most troubling about this story is that 18% of the world's computers were on Vista at Windows 7's release. About half of those had been downgraded to Windows XP. All of those computers should have been upgraded, because Windows Seven offers better security than XP or Vista. But, WIndows Seven's Usage has only moved from 2% to 9% in four months.
This is less than half as fast as Mac users are upgrading to Snow Leopard. Most Mac users tend to upgrade; 93% of Mac Users had upgraded to Leopard in 19 months. Snow Leopard, at current rates, will be at 90% in 12 to 14 months.
This is important because Apple won't move to the 64 bit kernel by default until enough apps have been upgraded to 64 bit code and enough people are already booting into the 64 bit kernel. The main advantage for booting into the 64 bit kernel is enhanced speed, followed by improved security.
The important thing, though, is that the 32 bit Carbon APIs will be rendered legacy, and thus apps in it will be sidelined. The 64 bit Cocoa apps will be much faster and more flexible, so there is little reason for newer machines to use Carbon. The Mac will become fully Object Oriented in five years, when Carbon is gone.
Apple hasn't upgraded all of its own apps to Cocoa yet, but it will before Mac OSX 10.7 is released in 12 to 18 months.
I don't believe you.
I've upgraded dozens and dozens of people to Snow Leopard and had zero problems with any of them.
Even Leo Laporte now says he hates it and regrets upgrading to Snow Leopard. So......
I upgraded as soon as I got my $9.99 disk and haven't looked back.
I like it.
Even Leo Laporte now says he hates it and regrets upgrading to Snow Leopard. So......
Who?
I upgraded as soon as I got my $9.99 disk and haven't looked back.
I like it.
So do most Mac users, apparently. Or else those Apple customer satisfaction numbers are a conspiracy of some kind.
So do most Mac users, apparently. Or else those Apple customer satisfaction numbers are a conspiracy of some kind.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
From my own experience and other people I know, I don't recommend anyone upgrading to Snow Leopard. Nothing but a big fat headache.
From my own experience and other people I know, I really recommend everyone to update to Snow Leopard. Nothing but a big step forward.
The real story is more complex than vocal Windows users (well, those who aren't complaining) would like to admit. Windows 7's biggest competitor is not OS X. It's Windows XP.
Yes, Microsoft doesn't care because every Win XP sale . . . is a sale, and is $$ in MS' pocket. Well, MS should care. XP was never a very good OS (aesthetics, UI, security, everything), though it was better than what came before. By the time Vista was released it was already an aging dinosaur. By now, it's just a horrible bunch of code. By sometime next year XP will be a decade old. Yuck.
Windows XP constitutes between 60 to 70 percent of the world's computer user base. About two-thirds of XP users do not have hardware new enough to take advantage of Windows 7. Nor is this necessary.
These computers are doing useful functions which wouldn't really benefit by an upgrade. They are old computers running old software which works well enough for occasional business use/running displays/cash registers/light duty use as front ends to mainframes or the web. As such, they are unlikely to be upgraded soon until the hardware breaks. It is not automatic that the owners will buy a new Wintel machine; Apple and Chrome may offer other advantages.
What is most troubling about this story is that 18% of the world's computers were on Vista at Windows 7's release. About half of those had been downgraded to Windows XP. All of those computers should have been upgraded, because Windows Seven offers better security than XP or Vista. But, WIndows Seven's Usage has only moved from 2% to 9% in four months.
This is less than half as fast as Mac users are upgrading to Snow Leopard. Most Mac users tend to upgrade; 93% of Mac Users had upgraded to Leopard in 19 months. Snow Leopard, at current rates, will be at 90% in 12 to 14 months.
This is important because Apple won't move to the 64 bit kernel by default until enough apps have been upgraded to 64 bit code and enough people are already booting into the 64 bit kernel. The main advantage for booting into the 64 bit kernel is enhanced speed, followed by improved security.
The important thing, though, is that the 32 bit Carbon APIs will be rendered legacy, and thus apps in it will be sidelined. The 64 bit Cocoa apps will be much faster and more flexible, so there is little reason for newer machines to use Carbon. The Mac will become fully Object Oriented in five years, when Carbon is gone.
Apple hasn't upgraded all of its own apps to Cocoa yet, but it will before Mac OSX 10.7 is released in 12 to 18 months.
WOW, you made everything so clear! Bravo. Now I understand why Microsoft is loosing money.
The real story is more complex than vocal Windows users (well, those who aren't complaining) would like to admit. Windows 7's biggest competitor is not OS X. It's Windows XP.
Yes, Microsoft doesn't care because every Win XP sale . . . is a sale, and is $$ in MS' pocket. Well, MS should care. XP was never a very good OS (aesthetics, UI, security, everything), though it was better than what came before. By the time Vista was released it was already an aging dinosaur. By now, it's just a horrible bunch of code. By sometime next year XP will be a decade old. Yuck.
Windows XP constitutes between 60 to 70 percent of the world's computer user base. About two-thirds of XP users do not have hardware new enough to take advantage of Windows 7. Nor is this necessary.
These computers are doing useful functions which wouldn't really benefit by an upgrade. They are old computers running old software which works well enough for occasional business use/running displays/cash registers/light duty use as front ends to mainframes or the web. As such, they are unlikely to be upgraded soon until the hardware breaks. It is not automatic that the owners will buy a new Wintel machine; Apple and Chrome may offer other advantages.
What is most troubling about this story is that 18% of the world's computers were on Vista at Windows 7's release. About half of those had been downgraded to Windows XP. All of those computers should have been upgraded, because Windows Seven offers better security than XP or Vista. But, WIndows Seven's Usage has only moved from 2% to 9% in four months.
This is less than half as fast as Mac users are upgrading to Snow Leopard. Most Mac users tend to upgrade; 93% of Mac Users had upgraded to Leopard in 19 months. Snow Leopard, at current rates, will be at 90% in 12 to 14 months.
This is important because Apple won't move to the 64 bit kernel by default until enough apps have been upgraded to 64 bit code and enough people are already booting into the 64 bit kernel. The main advantage for booting into the 64 bit kernel is enhanced speed, followed by improved security.
The important thing, though, is that the 32 bit Carbon APIs will be rendered legacy, and thus apps in it will be sidelined. The 64 bit Cocoa apps will be much faster and more flexible, so there is little reason for newer machines to use Carbon. The Mac will become fully Object Oriented in five years, when Carbon is gone.
Apple hasn't upgraded all of its own apps to Cocoa yet, but it will before Mac OSX 10.7 is released in 12 to 18 months.
In this little rant of yours what you are failing to understand is for every 5 Mac users there are 90 Windows users. So you cant compare OSX upgrade data to Windows data. Also the fact that Netbooks use Windows XP and are big sellers slants the numbers.
Windows 7 sold more copies in pre orders then SL has sold to date.
Windows 7 has been out for two months and it already has a larger install base then SL and Leopard and Tiger combined.
Lets also point out that with a much smaller install base over 20% of Mac users are still running an OS two generations or older.
This is important because Apple won't move to the 64 bit kernel by default until enough apps have been upgraded to 64 bit code and enough people are already booting into the 64 bit kernel. The main advantage for booting into the 64 bit kernel is enhanced speed, followed by improved security. .
Nice post, but one correction. The use of a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel is independent of the app being 32-bit or 64-bit. MS was lazy on this front for their non-server offerings which has somehow imprinted this idea that you need to have a 64-bit OS (read: kernel) to run a 64-bit app.
The only way Apple will move to a 64-bit kernel as default (or the only option) for consumer Macs is if all major drivers and the most common 3rd-party drivers are 64-bit.
While it's still early in the game, my guess is that 10.7 will default to 64-bit for all Macs. Nothing an with a 32-bit CPU (eg: Core Duo) or 32-bit memory addressing (ie: Macs that can only use 3GB RAM) won't be updatable to 10.7... to name a few. You'll be able to boot into 32-bit if needed as this will be a common troubleshooting tip if a peripheral doesn't work. By 10.8 there will be no 32-bit kernel support.
So far, only the improved security is the only advantage for every Mac running in 64-bit over 32-bit. I've seen a few Macs not run as well as 64-bit due to less than stellar 64-bit driver support, often in the GPU.
In this little rant of yours what you are failing to understand is for every 5 Mac users there are 90 Windows users. So you cant compare OSX upgrade data to Windows data. Also the fact that Netbooks use Windows XP and are big sellers slants the numbers.
Windows 7 sold more copies in pre orders then SL has sold to date.
Windows 7 has been out for two months and it already has a larger install base then SL and Leopard and Tiger combined.
Lets also point out that with a much smaller install base over 20% of Mac users are still running an OS two generations or older.
1) Win7 has been out for over 4 months, not 2 months.
2) Good job comparing 5 users from a PC OEM to a 90 OS users that cover every other OEM.
3) Of course Win7 sales are larger than SL sales WHICH IS DESIGNED TO RUN ON INTEL MACS. The number of Win7 Public Beta from nearly 14 months ago likely got installed on more machines than on Macs. Note, the nearly 14 months ago comment.
And I like to stay current. I figure sooner or later I'm going to want to do something that will require the snowy cat. The price was reasonable too. If it had been $130 I might have passed for now because there were no new features that I felt I needed.
A different story with Leopard. Quick look is a must. I miss it every time I touch a PC. And of course the easy "set it and forget it" time machine. Plus the easier networking with the new finder window.
As far as the problems, I'm confident Apple will release an update that will address any issues. Just as they did with Leopard, Aperture, Mobile Me, etc.
Just a little disappointed that I've had crashes. Glad to hear that it's only me. I bet you guys never have a dropped call or a yellow monitor!
Nice post, but one correction. The use of a 32-bit or 64-bit kernel is independent of the app being 32-bit or 64-bit. MS was lazy on this front for their non-server offerings which has somehow imprinted this idea that you need to have a 64-bit OS (read: kernel) to run a 64-bit app.
The only way Apple will move to a 64-bit kernel as default (or the only option) for consumer Macs is if all major drivers and the most common 3rd-party drivers are 64-bit.
Ah, true. I stand corrected. Your point about drivers is a good one. That is, in many ways, just as critical as app-migration to 64-bit.