It’s 2019 and Program Files and Program Files (x86) still have essentially the same number of entries for me. x86-64 processors have been available for over 15 years. The specification was finalized 19 years ago.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton
they still have users running 16-bit programs on the 32-bit kernel. they will probably always have users running 16-bit programs who demand a 32-bit kernel. time to finally accept the death of the expectation of the death of the 32-bit kernel
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JamesWidman @pcwalton
Not only that, OEMs have still been shipping 32-bit only hardware, or selling 64-bit hardware with a 64-bit OS as an upsell, fairly recently. Isn't the biggest Windows install base still pirate Windows XP too?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
and if the 32-bit hardware costs less, and the software doesn't need a 64-bit environment, guaranteed they will keep making 32-bit only hardware.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
related: apparently, in the C committee, there is at least one implementor who targets an architecture that has less than 2 KB total and costs "roughly 1 cent per device". See also: http://sdcc.sourceforge.net
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
I feel like we were robbed of a TNG episode where Data programs a swarm of billions of nanites, each of which implements some ISA from the 1970's.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
To be clear, I don’t mind 32-bit architectures in general. Just 32-bit x86.
-
-
Replying to @pcwalton @JamesWidman
Win32 is still pretty deeply entrenched, alas
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.