You be right, this is exactly what one would expect Lennart to say.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux Kernel: "Drop Support For x86-32"
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by nej_simon View PostAcutally some of Intel's latest CPUs are still only 32bit (the Atom z-series). They are used in some Windows 7 tablets like the HP slate series. Microsoft probably didn't think it was time to drop support for them just yet.
Yea, dropping 32-bit is just plain stupid. That said, what would be a good thing for Microsoft to do is drop WOW64 by not having it installed by default. Perhaps offer it as a download. That would be enough to motivate developers to do a proper 64-bit build.
Comment
-
Also, here's an enjoyment tip for readers: when reading that LKML post and the thread that Gusar linked to, don't forget to have this running in the background: http://endlessvideo.com/watch?v=1orMXD_Ijbs
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View Posttbh i think windows 7 should've been the last serious 32 bit release - it would help force people to move away from their P4s. as for linux, there hasn't really been a compelling reason to use 32 bit unless you are a p4 (or older) user. the only difference is linux is still pretty good with that older hardware, so ditching support for it would be annoying for such users. however, those users seem to be left in the dust in many ways anyway, mainly due to GPU support associated by the P4's (and older) generation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by NoAsylum View Post32bit CPU's are still far more relevant than 64bit CPU's.
Comment
-
Originally posted by yogi_berra View PostIt certainly has nothing to do with supporting currently existing software that all of their customers are using.
Comment
-
Originally posted by energyman View Postthat guy was shot down by Al Viro&co pretty much at once - and Phoronix makes a big story out of it.
Moronix?
Bad Taste?
Trolling for Advertisement?
Comment
-
Long live LInux 32bit
Originally posted by ciplogic View PostIn 2006 at the end I've had a Pentium M 1.73 Ghz (Donthan) that offered decent performance for XP, and I've upgraded for Vista. I think that using the same hardware Windows 7 would be the next logical step (to upgrade).
Windows 7 works on notebooks and also they are working in lower end machines (mostly on memory specs) where 64 bit brings no advantage, or if is any, please point it out.
Windows 8 to be 64 bit only? Why? It uses basically the same specs as Windows 7 or Vista. 32 bit brings in itself some advantages, including that if you target a software package for a 32 bit Windows, you know that it will work with XP. And if you think that most XP users are owners of 32 bit machines, and some of Win7 users are on 32 bit machine too, I see no reason why Microsoft would not want to not support such of a wide user base.
At the end I'm thinking that Linux should follow the same path, and not only for tablets: running on more platforms means that they can enjoy the beauty of Linux. Remember Ubuntu PowerPC? Many Mac users were exposed to it: if you don't want to upgrade your Mac every time with 130 dollars (as it was at the time), you will get a newer Unix like experience for just writing it on a CD.
At the end, Linux is used a lot in schools, I know they use it in Spain. Why not allow users to upgrade their beloved OS with the newest Ubuntu, Suse or Fedora?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gusar View PostThis doom and gloom of "being left in the dust" and "being forced to upgrade" is just plain ridiculous. It might be true for a few distros, but you're not being forced to use them, there's plenty of other choices, and by that I don't just mean LTS distros like CentOS.
Regardless, most of my hardware is still better off using 32 bit ATM, so I am definitely glad this guy was shot down.
Comment
Comment