[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 64-bit transition deadline (Re: Etch in the hands of the Stable Release Managers)

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:14:50PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> You forgot the "+PAE" part.

PAE helps the OS, not the applications.  Applications still only get
32bit.  Well unless the OS starts doing something weird, and it would
then require applications written explictly for some memory access

> They do that already, but it doesn't work for a lot of hardware:
>   - old hardware that was already sold, and for which the vendor may not even
>   exist anymore.
>   - hardware from small vendors that can't afford the cost of certification.

I thought they had started only allowing certified drivers to even

> The truth is, that there's a huge mass of unsupported hardware out there, and
> nobody in the win* userbase is pushing for 64-bit drivers since they all use
> win32.  Vendors just don't care unless MS forces them.  And even if they're
> forced, they have no genuine interest in high-quality drivers, which may
> result in unstability, etc.

Certainly true.  Linux drivers do tend to me much better quality, and
portable accross cpu architectures.

> The fact that Microsoft has chosen to remove win64 completely from the retail
> boxes for Vista is very significative.

No, they include it in ultimate (it has both DVDs) and they will mail it
to any customer for cost of shipping it if you want 64bit instead.  I
think they mainly did it to avoid tech support calls when something
doesn't work for 64bit.

> It doesn't really matter.  If we win the 64bit battle, when microsoft wants to
> migrate to 64-bit, they'll find that this niche is already occupied, and that
> the reference API is another one.  Then they can clone us if they want to try
> something :-)

Well I think users of applications like solidworks, lightwave, maya,
etc, just might use win64 and be quite happy with it.  Not a huge
market, but not nothing either.  I doubt this will be small enough that
linux can automatically win the 64bit OS market.  And if people start
demanding 64bit support they will find a way to get a machien that does
work with 64bit windows and get the applications they want.

> Yes.  And we're backwards compatible (wine can run win32 binaries) too.  The
> real problem is, can they be compatible with x86_64-linux-gnu api ?

Why would they care to be?  That isn't their market.

> We'll surely have that for lenny. :-)

Much as I tend to be optimistic, I am not so sure about that.

Len Sorensen

Reply to: