32 or 64??

[Christopher Chan]

On Monday, February 01, 2010 10:23 PM, Odd wrote:
> Wybo Dekker wrote:
>> Chris Jones wrote:
>>>> I have: one of my software packages, important for me, is based
>>>> on xview, which is an early Sun-development. My package does not
>>>> compile on 64-bit machines, since xview is frozen and not
>>>> compatible with 64 bits.
>>> Nothing stops you working in 32 bit mode on a 64 bit system. 64 bit
>>> is a super-set of 32, and completely backwards compatible.
>>
>> that's exactly what I do, but the statement was that no problems were
>> expected for a 64-bits OS
>
> The 64bit architecture was engineered specifically to be able to run
> 32bit x86 software natively. That's not a problem, it's a feature of
> the architecture.

'The 64bit architecture'? May I remind you that some people fight over 
whether to use AMD64 or EMT64 (I vote AMD64) and loath though I am to 
make mention of it, the Itanium was NOT specifically engineered to be 
able to run 32-bit x86 software natively. Neither the Alpha nor the 
Sparc/MIPS? nor PowerPC/PPC.


>
> Also, there will always be problems, no matter what your system is,
> 64bit or 32bit.
>

32-bit stuff had proven to be very popular in a time when many 64-bit 
choices were available and is still popular when not a few of those 
64-bit choices have disappeared...