On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 02:09:08 +0000, Laurie wrote:
>Hi Matt,
Hi, Laurie!
>{Quote}
oh the horror
>{Quote}
>If you did even a minor read of this newsgroup you would find numerous
>users using Civil 3D in 64 bit O/Ss and far happier than those using 32
>bit O/Ss.
THIS IS VERY VERY TRUE.
...As I was reminded by SEVERAL people in private messages since I made my
idiotic reply way back when. Consider my forehead roundly slapped. Even monkeys
fall out of trees, I guess.
But, thank you anyway for offering yet another correction - in addition to the
three responses to my reply - to what was OBVIOUSLY a HUMONGOUS GLARING MISTAKE
on my part, to what is now a three-week-old post.
And thank you for reminding me to do minor reads of this newsgroup. To think
that all this time I have been poring over all of these posts, every single day
for several years now, and trying to provide a modicum of help to other users. I
must have responded to thousands of posts over all this time, and still I
totally screwed the pooch, as they say in the trade, on that one.
Now I know the secret. Minor reads .
>Why would you expect Access databases to be the limiting factor?
What I meant to mean was that there is no 64-bit version of Civil3D due to the
limitation with the Access database connector provided by Microsoft in 64-bit
versions of Windows. From what understand this is one cause of the issue.
See, what I think happened was that I was in the middle of helping two customers
with 64-bit C3D questions and responding to this thread at the same time and got
everything all katywhumpus and kerfluffled - that is to say, royally messed up.
But again, I'm no C3D expert. Clearly.
So obviously, I hadz teh dumb0rz on this one, so please, everyone, disregard my
stupid reply on this post. For your own safety. ...Hm...where did I stash that
rattan cane I got on vacation in Malaysia?
Again, thank you so much for keeping a sharp eye on these things.
Matt
matt@stachoni.com,