32 or 64??

[Odd]

Christopher Chan wrote:
> 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)

That's funny. They are both AMD64. Intel adopted it wholesale, back
when they realized AMD had come up with something that gave
them an advantage. That's why the AMD64 version of Ubuntu works
flawlessly on Intel's chips. Those people fighting are very uninformed.

> 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.

I see I should have taken into account the people whose ability to
connect the dots from one post to the next is lacking. Let me spell it out
then:

"The 64bit architecture we're talking about, AMD64, was engineered
specifically to be able to run 32bit x86 software natively."

Now, is that clearer? That's what people are talking about in this
thread. Not Itanium, Sparc, Alpha, MIPS, PPC, Power, or what have you.

-- 
Odd