I thought I remember hearing once that RSView32 is 16 bit code at the core. Does anyone know if this is true? I mean 16 bit RSView with 32 bit Wrapper. I know a few large SCADA products took that approach to migrate to the 32 bit operating system. Wonderware only just released a true 32 bit product this fall for example.

So my question is will RSView32SE even be able to be moved to a 64 bit platform? I read on Microsoft’s website that 16 bit code can not migrate to their 64 bit operating system. I think I would be concerned about this if I were purchasing a new system today. Whether you are using Vista now or not. Everyone will be using it in the next few years or so. I know I would not feel good about putting in a large scale solution with out knowing it will work on Vista at this point. I mean even if you put in a Windows Terminal Services application will not those instances need to be able to be delivered to 64 bit machines if a company makes the move to 64 bit. Even if they leave the server alone?

Any enlighten that anyone can provide me on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Also, any information about SCADA that does or does not have 16 bit code at the core would be much appreciated.

Citect
WinCC
IFix or Fix32
Cimplicity

 

I can't answer your questions regarding RSView32, but I can say that I think you are over simplifying a complex question. Even if their software is entirely 32 bit, it may not run on a 64 bit system or even on 32 bit MS Vista.

Microsoft may be years behind every other OS supplier with regards to 64 bit support but there is still quite a bit of relevant experience from other operating systems on the problems with running software on a 64 bit or mixed 32/64 OS. Generally, the biggest problems other operating systems found were due to existing hidden bugs in 32 bit code being exposed under the new conditions. In many cases, the bugs were simply due to bad assumptions by the original programmers. Correcting these typically required extensive rewriting of the code to correct.

This means that knowing whether a particular program uses only 32 bit code (and no 16 bit code) won't tell you whether that 32 bit code can be made to work on a 64 bit OS (or mixed 32/64 bit OS). The only thing that can tell you that is systematic testing.

Your question also covers trying to run a program on MS Windows Vista. MS Vista already has plenty of compatibility problems with existing software without even introducing any 64 bit problems. Again, the only way to discover what those are is through extensive testing.

Have a look at what third party (Microsoft) features Rockwell says their product uses: ActiveX (obsolete), and VBA (completely dead). You should be asking yourself what Rockwell is going to be doing to replace those.

Add to this set of problems questions about other third party components. What about third party databases? What about OPC servers? You mentioned MS Windows Server 2008. That introduces changes to Microsoft's proprietary (and until recently completely undocumented) networking protocols. There are plenty of other things to worry about besides 16 bit code.

You said: "Whether you are using Vista now or not. Everyone will be using it in the next few years or so." I certainly hope not! I had a meeting today with someone who just got a new laptop (from a major vendor) that came with MS Windows Vista Business (or whatever they are calling it). He's had it for a week and he's completely fed up with it and intends to convert it to Windows XP.

If you are concerned, try asking Rockwell what their product plans are. Quite frankly though, I suspect that MS Windows Vista support is not at the top of their priority list. MS Vista has gone over like a lead balloon in the market so far and large businesses (i.e. Rockwell's major customers) are not adopting it and (according to surveys in the IT press) presently have no plans to adopt it.

The question that Rockwell and other SCADA vendors should be asking themselves is how they got themselves into a situation where another company's marketing plans makes their own critical products obsolete.

 

I have seen too many times in the past 15 years that a lot of integrators and others want to jump on the new software "bandwagon" without hesitation and find themselves pulling their hair out in the aftermath. My suggestion to them would be as a general rule of thumb, "wait two years after the new revision before any software migration."

I remember when XP first came out and everyone had to get on that boat because some kid at Radio Shack told them it was the best. "The people of that boat drowned."

Now I've watched the VISTA Circus play around with its users like a cat-toy and everyone scrambles for answers. Now here I'm seeing others talking about 64-bit platforms.

Why would anyone ever remotely be concerned on putting a SCADA application on a 64-bit processor? XP will be around for quite some time.

 

They could save a great deal of trouble and churn by porting to an OS that has been 64 bit for years like Linux. But then they would miss all the revenue derived from all the steps and "upgrades" it will cost users to get there with Microsoft. They are certainly taking the hardest route to get to that goal. But I suppose, as long as the users are paying for all of it, you wouldn't want to skip a single fleecing.

Regards

cww

 

In reply to Brian E Boothe: I can't argue against "not jumping on the lastest software bandwagon", but I don't know why you are so confident that "XP will be around for quite some time". I agree that people will still be using it some years from now, but Microsoft intends to stop selling licenses in June.

They've already extended that date twice (it was supposed to be discontinued last June), but that doesn't mean they will continue to do so. Large corporate customers will be able to use their volume licenses to install MS XP on PCs they buy, but everyone else will be stuck with MS Vista. With many newer PCs (especially laptops) you can't get drivers for MS XP, so you can't downgrade even if the license permits it.

As for 64 bit, almost all the new PCs sold for some time now have come with 64 bit processors. Microsoft is years behind everyone else in adopting 64 bit, but they do have it now. Microsoft depends on the hardware vendors to provide most of the drivers for their OS. If the hardware vendors stop providing 32 bit drivers in order to save money, then you'll have have problems *not* using 64 bit on new hardware whether you like it or not.

As for why anyone would want 64 bit MS Vista, well the answer is simple. The maximum address space for 32 bit MS Windows is 3.5 GB. MS Vista is so bloated that most people find they need at least 2 GB of RAM to get reasonable performance out of it. The MMI and SCADA vendors will use MS languages, libraries, databases, etc., and *their* programs will also bloat out correspondingly over the next few years. That 3.5 GB limit is starting to look like a problem. People are already complaining that they put 4 GB of RAM in their PCs and can't make use if it all because of limitations with 32 bit MS Windows.

You probably remember Bill Gate's famous "640k ought to be enough for anyone". Well, it looks like the current version of that is "3.5 GB ought to be enough for anyone".

P.S. - There are genuine technical advantages to 64 bit on x86 besides more addressable memory. When AMD designed the 64 bit architecture (which Intel also copied), they addressed some of the problems in the 32 bit version such as adding more registers. Future development on x86 will be 64 bit, with 32 bit being "legacy support" only.