"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>
> And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't
> x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit
> version of
> Windows.

(Chips sold) != (Chips in use)

Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:jcg0q8$145v$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>
>> And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't
>> x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit
>> version of
>> Windows.
>
> (Chips sold) != (Chips in use)
>
> Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense.
>

Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) : No, I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.)

On 12/16/2011 9:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's
> getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are
> people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something
> 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) : No,
> I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.)

I still have some customers using DMC for 16 bit work, and I still run DMC through all those tests.

On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 18:01:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> No, I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.)

One of the reasons I like Digital Mars is the compiler still
targets 16 bit. (That was hugely important as a newb, and I don't
use it much anymore, but it's very nice to have when I still want
it.)

When I tried college round two, assembly language class did 16
bit DOS programs too, running on Windows, of course. This was...
I think 2007.

"Walter Bright" <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:jcg1k1$15kk$2@digitalmars.com...
> On 12/16/2011 9:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know
>> that's
>> getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are
>> people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on
>> something
>> 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) :
>> No,
>> I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.)
>
> I still have some customers using DMC for 16 bit work, and I still run DMC through all those tests.
>

See, everyone! There's people (plural, apparently!) even more anachronistic than me! ;)

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:47:54 -0500, torhu <no@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browseruk@xoxy.net wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?
>>
>> The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much
>> into that?
>>
>> Cheers, buk
>>
>
> There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows.  What
> are you going to use it for?

Linking to 64-bit programs. Also, I work on GPGPU medical imaging problems and I have run my 3GB Tesla card out of ram on occasion.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:59:43 +0100, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:

> "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message
> news:jcg0q8$145v$1@digitalmars.com...
>> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote in message
>> news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
>>>
>>> And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't
>>> x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit
>>> version of
>>> Windows.
>>
>> (Chips sold) != (Chips in use)
>>
>> Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money
>> but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense.
>>
>
> Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's
> getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are
> people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something
> 16-bit.

My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company
here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely
some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade.

> My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company
> here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely
> some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade.

What is wrong with this world? ;)

On 17.12.2011 04:26, Trass3r wrote:
>>  My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company
>>  here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely
>>  some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade.
>
> What is wrong with this world? ;)

DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.  It all depends, of course.  Might be a FoxPro app or something.

> DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.

How is that different from a Windows console app?