Xara fails with too many photos: observed limits

[pauland]

Pauland,
I would understand if Representatives of Software-Makers say that 64 Bit is not yet required and needed too much work, would make the Product more expensive, and would prolong Development Cycles.
Trust me I've seen and heard all that and more also in the 3D Modeling Industry, 5 years ago. Sure enough, all these programs are of course 64 Bit now. Customers here consider 64bitness not a feature but a precondition to utilize the program at all.

Xaras market is consumer/semi-professional (though several professionals use it).

But you are a fellow user right? What's your point then? I don't get it.

Yes, I use Xara software. My point was that Xaras customers mostly run 32bit software and have machines that wouldn't see huge advantage in going 64bit. A 64bit Xara would be nice, but the majority of Xaras customers wouldn't be able to use it.

Thing is: Nobody had to split up large Documents any more, the problem of the Original Poster was immediately solved.

Possibly, provided the OP upgraded to a 64bit OS and had a machine able to cope with adding more memory.

The whole program would scale better. Currently I see no performance gain when I use Xara on my beefy Workstation - it runs with the same performance as on my old DualCore-Laptop. Vectors of course fly as they are wonderfully programmed but it nowadays simply should no more be the case that Software gets slow because you've loaded some dozens of medium Res-Images.

Xara will get around to it in due course, I'm sure. I'm not sure what the point of this particular discussion is besides refuting the idea that Xaras users are clambouring en-masse for a 64 bit version.

It's ironic. I used to write software for a 16bit computer that had 64MB memory and ran on warships pointing nasty things at intruders, yet today we don't seem to be able to build a website without a 64bit operatings system and megabytes of memory. That's progress.. ;-)

[Guest]

I simply find absurd that you as a fellow user try toning done the importance of a pretty unexotic wish although you too found 64Bit an attractive option.

Also you can take as given that for years already large amounts of inexpensive consumer-level computers are shipped with 64 Bit and more than 4GB Ram, that's why I attached a link to an Electronics Store addressing Consumers. You may of course ignore this. That said I would even agree that at this point in time many non-professional users still are on 32Bit.

Telling Xara however "It's ok - our old Computers still do - don't waste your time with 64 Bit support" is what I would consider a completely wrong signal. They will need their time to build that Version.

Finally - if Xara only consisted of Vector-Editing as it was the case first time I tried I would never ask for 64 Bit. That's the same with Zbrush. It is so fast and elegant - I would not care if it stayed 32 Bit forever.
But Xara has extended its Profile - it's also a Web-Editor now. I only bought it for this purpose. Unfortunately however Bitmaps in Web-Documents can't get processed equally slim as Vectors, also not by Xara.
Yes and I at least prefer looking at Websites which appear a bit richer than those when our Computers only had 64MbRam.

[pauland]

Telling Xara however "It's ok - our old Computers still do - don't waste your time with 64 Bit support"

That's not something I've said, it's your interpretation. All I've ever said is that the majority of Xaras consumer base are running 32bit software and this may be the reason why Xara has not produced a 64bit version of the software. However good a 64bit version may be, it's unlikely that the majority of Xaras users will rush out and upgrade systems just because Xara has a version with go-faster stripes.

For all I know Xara may be making a 64bit version as we post, but I don't see an overriding reason given their demographic, to do so.

There will always be power users, but they are the exception, not the rule and not always the arbiters of the best strategy for a company to follow.

As for being absurd, you might like to consider that opinions that are differrent to your own aren't necessarily without merit.

I at least prefer looking at Websites which appear a bit richer than those when our Computers only had 64MbRam.

Quantity and quality aren't the same thing. It's perfectly possible to build a rich website without a 64bit operating system and it's perfectly possible to improve quality by having fewer photographs.

This is now rather OT, so I shall desist from continuing this pointless debate about 64bit any more.

My summary is: 64bit would be good, but it's not essential.

[Guest]

One last thing I would like to say is that I don't think that 64 Bit is a Power-User or Professionals-Feature.

In contrast: Whenever I teach Software I try to give Beginners the best machines. Why so?
An experienced User can foresee what actions are taxing for the system resources,
knows about weaknesses of the Software used, can use workarounds and develop Strategies to reach also complex Goals
with less powerful Hardware.
A Beginner or Hobbyist needs forgiving Hardware for most enjoyable experience.

What was a mistake on 32 Bit would not longer be a mistake if the engine had the horsepower and the transmission (Software) got adapted.