New version of DRM removal tools ("DeDRM")

[lkmiller]

I have (very few times) seen someone say that they were unable to download a book with ADE 2.0.1. They download it with a later version, and then cannot open it with 2.0.1. So that sounds like it could be a store using newer DRM exclusively. But if they mention what vendor, it has always been something I've never heard of before.

Kobo and Google still allow downloads with 2.0.1, and, as far as I've seen, aren't using the newer DRM at this point. So you may be fine with a later version, but you never know when that might change.

Another thing to keep in mind, ADE 2.0.1 is a 32-bit program.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by lkmiller

Another thing to keep in mind, ADE 2.0.1 is a 32-bit program.

I don’t know about the Mac, but Windows isn’t going to stop supporting 32-bit applications any time in the foreseeable future.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don’t know about the Mac, but Windows isn’t going to stop supporting 32-bit applications any time in the foreseeable future.

I get warnings on 32 bit apps. Implicit is that Apple will stop supporting 32 bit apps in a year or two. Apple has never been shy about depreciating previous versions.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don’t know about the Mac, but Windows isn’t going to stop supporting 32-bit applications any time in the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I get warnings on 32 bit apps. Implicit is that Apple will stop supporting 32 bit apps in a year or two. Apple has never been shy about depreciating previous versions.

If previous indications are anything to go by (and they're probably not), we won't see the deprecation of 32 bit apps until we move to 128 bit processors and OS. 16-bit apps were supported on Windows until the availability of 64-bit client Windows. And would still run on the 32 bit Windows (which is still available in Windows 10.)

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by CRussel

If previous indications are anything to go by (and they're probably not), we won't see the deprecation of 32 bit apps until we move to 128 bit processors and OS. 16-bit apps were supported on Windows until the availability of 64-bit client Windows. And would still run on the 32 bit Windows (which is still available in Windows 10.)

The move to 128bit is not going to happen for consumer devices in the foreseeable future. The only (practical) reason to move from 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 bit was for being able to access more RAM. Even current smart phones cannot do without 64bit anymore as they now have memory in excess of 4GB. Breaking through the 64bit memory barrier is highly unlikely to happen. 16 exa byte - that is 16 thousand terra byte. Maybe when normal person storage needs reach that high can you think about 128bit cpu for mainstream users.

[lkmiller]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don’t know about the Mac, but Windows isn’t going to stop supporting 32-bit applications any time in the foreseeable future.

Current Mac OS is the last to support 32-bit.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by CRussel

If previous indications are anything to go by (and they're probably not), we won't see the deprecation of 32 bit apps until we move to 128 bit processors and OS. 16-bit apps were supported on Windows until the availability of 64-bit client Windows. And would still run on the 32 bit Windows (which is still available in Windows 10.)

That is one of the main philosophical differences between Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft was all about backwards comparability. Apple rarely concerns themselves about it, though as long as you stay with the API, you should be ok. Unless you are doing something funky or dealing with a depreciated API, a simple recompile gets you there.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Unless you are doing something funky or dealing with a depreciated API, a simple recompile gets you there.

Which is fine as long as the developers are still around .

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The move to 128bit is not going to happen for consumer devices in the foreseeable future. The only (practical) reason to move from 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 bit was for being able to access more RAM. Even current smart phones cannot do without 64bit anymore as they now have memory in excess of 4GB. Breaking through the 64bit memory barrier is highly unlikely to happen. 16 exa byte - that is 16 thousand terra byte. Maybe when normal person storage needs reach that high can you think about 128bit cpu for mainstream users.

32-bit can access plenty of RAM. The problem is that Microsoft crippled that functionality in order to try to get people to move to 64-bit. But, when OS X moves to 64-bit only, that means ADE 2.0.1 will no longer work. Would it be possible to dual-boot two different versions of OS X?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

32-bit can access plenty of RAM. The problem is that Microsoft crippled that functionality in order to try to get people to move to 64-bit. But, when OS X moves to 64-bit only, that means ADE 2.0.1 will no longer work. Would it be possible to dual-boot two different versions of OS X?

32-bit can address 4GB of RAM. More than that, you need 64bit.

[cd2013]

To be precise:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/8869596
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physic...ress_Extension

Yes, a 32-bit architecture is limited to addressing a maximum of 4 gigabytes of memory. Depending on the operating system, this number can be cut down even further due to reserved address space.

This limitation can be removed on certain 32-bit architectures via the use of PAE (Physical Address Extension), but it must be supported by the processor. PAE eanbles the processor to access more than 4 GB of memory, but it does not change the amount of virtual address space available to a single process—each process would still be limited to a maximum of 4 GB of address space.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

32-bit can access plenty of RAM. The problem is that Microsoft crippled that functionality in order to try to get people to move to 64-bit. But, when OS X moves to 64-bit only, that means ADE 2.0.1 will no longer work. Would it be possible to dual-boot two different versions of OS X?

I don't see the point. Just run the Windows 32-bit version in WINE. Problem solved.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

32-bit can address 4GB of RAM. More than that, you need 64bit.

They could bring segmented memory back. Wouldn't that be fun!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ratinox

I don't see the point. Just run the Windows 32-bit version in WINE. Problem solved.

The question refers to dual-booting two different versions of OS X. Is that possible?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The move to 128bit is not going to happen for consumer devices in the foreseeable future. The only (practical) reason to move from 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 bit was for being able to access more RAM. Even current smart phones cannot do without 64bit anymore as they now have memory in excess of 4GB. Breaking through the 64bit memory barrier is highly unlikely to happen. 16 exa byte - that is 16 thousand terra byte. Maybe when normal person storage needs reach that high can you think about 128bit cpu for mainstream users.

16 thousand terabytes might happen in a decade or three, but 64 bits can address 16 million terabytes.