On 12/16/2011 1:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote:
>> People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit
>> programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is
>> usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size,
>> they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't
>> actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the
>> packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my
>> understanding.
>>
>> This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but
>> I'm not too familiar with that system.
>
> Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing
> code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are
> compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running
> either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care.
>

The Mac "universal" binaries are simply the 32 bit and 64 bit versions concatenated into one file. It doesn't save on download size.

On 2011-12-16 10:24, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/16/2011 1:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote:
>>> People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit
>>> programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is
>>> usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size,
>>> they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't
>>> actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the
>>> packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>> This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but
>>> I'm not too familiar with that system.
>>
>> Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables
>> containing
>> code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the
>> OS are
>> compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem
>> running
>> either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care.
>>
>
> The Mac "universal" binaries are simply the 32 bit and 64 bit versions
> concatenated into one file. It doesn't save on download size.

Exactly, I didn't say anything else.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Friday, December 16, 2011 10:10:57 torhu wrote:
> On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote:
> > On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote:
> >>>  dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but
> >>>  my
> >>>  datasets often reach several GB...
> >>> 
> >>>  my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.
> >> 
> >>  Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P
> > 
> > lol, that's not even the only issue.
> > 
> > 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app.
> 
> Most people are not actually doing scientific programming.  And they don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are in the "real" System32.  But if they do, there are several easy solutions.[1]  Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows would be if you are creating a shell extension.  TortoiseSVN comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason.
> 
> People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS.  That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading.  To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries.  Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first.  At least that's my understanding.

On Linux, there's frequently no point in having 32-bit libraries installed. Everything is built for the native architecture, so why bother having the 32- bit libraries if they're not needed? There are the occasional exception - such as if you want to run wine in 32-bit mode, but even that can be in 64-bit now (though the risk of it not being appropriately compatible with Windows programs is greater in 64-bit, since it's newer).

I would fully expect Windows to run 32-bit programs, but I would also think that 64-bit programs would become the norm such that there would eventually be no reason to have 32-bit programs aside from legacy stuff which isn't rebuilt. 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. As long as the 64-bit versions runs the 32-bit programs properly, I don't see any point in having a 32-bit version of the OS - especially computers increasingly have too much memory to be able to use it all with a 32-bit OS.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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.

This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.

On 16.12.2011 10:17, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote:
>>  On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>  On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote:
>>>>>  dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my
>>>>>  datasets often reach several GB...
>>>>>
>>>>>  my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.
>>>>
>>>>  Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P
>>>
>>>  lol, that's not even the only issue.
>>>
>>>  32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..."
>>>  actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and
>>>  there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app.
>>
>>  Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they
>>  don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are
>>  in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy
>>  solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows
>>  would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in
>>  both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason.
>>
>>  People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit
>>  programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is
>>  usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size,
>>  they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't
>>  actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the
>>  packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my
>>  understanding.
>>
>>  This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but
>>  I'm not too familiar with that system.
>
> Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables
> containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled
> with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it
> no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have
> to know or care.
>

I know that much, but I wasn't sure why they were so keen on having 64 bit versions of apps.  Maybe just to accelerate the switch to 64-bits by making it easier for developers to support both.  And now they have started to leave things like Carbon behind in 32-bit land.  At least you can't say that Apple isn't moving forward.

On Friday, December 16, 2011 11:09:25 Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.

Hmm. That's the first I've heard of 32-bit x86 processors in ages. All of the ones that I've seen or heard about for quite a while have been x86_64, even if they're running 32-bit Windows. The only 32-bit processors that I've heard about are ARM processors. I guess that I don't pay enough attention to that sort of stuff.

- Jonathan M Davis

Some intel atoms still use 32-bit architecture.

Il giorno ven, 16/12/2011 alle 02.48 -0800, Jonathan M Davis ha scritto:

> On Friday, December 16, 2011 11:09:25 Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.
> 
> Hmm. That's the first I've heard of 32-bit x86 processors in ages. All of the ones that I've seen or heard about for quite a while have been x86_64, even if they're running 32-bit Windows. The only 32-bit processors that I've heard about are ARM processors. I guess that I don't pay enough attention to that sort of stuff.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

Jakob Ovrum Wrote:

> On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.

New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old) versions of intel atom are x86_64.

On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 12:14:50 UTC, a wrote:
> Jakob Ovrum Wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> > 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.
>> 
>> This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.
>
> New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old) versions of intel atom are x86_64.

The keyword here is "sold", and besides, IA32 is still extremely common on cheap netbooks and laptops, even some recent models. The Atom line having 64 bit models doesn't mean a whole lot for the present reality.

32-bit x86 is definitely disappearing, but there is a long road ahead and 32 bit x86 is still ubiquitous.

And I bet if you counted all the offices using Windows around the world, you'd find the vast majority of them using 32-bit hardware. There's no reason Microsoft shouldn't offer upgrade opportunities for that userbase as long as their new OS' work fine on old hardware.

Il giorno ven, 16/12/2011 alle 07.14 -0500, a ha scritto:

> Jakob Ovrum Wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.
> 
> New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old) versions of intel atom are x86_64.


It says "instruction set"  32 bit. Released on Q2 2011... http://ark.intel.com/products/55663/