On Sun, 2014-02-09 at 18:16 +0000, Steve Teale wrote: […] > OK, I'm clear about why Linux, but 64 bit I'm less clear about. > What's the attraction about a system that's a memory hog, but not > noticeably quicker, and where you have to do cross compilation to > make applications that are usable by the vast proportion of world > computer users?
I do not understand the "memory hog" gibe, but yes 32-bit, 64-bit is not a speed thing. Everyone I know who uses a computer always has 8GB or more of memory, so 32-bit OS is not an option. I guess the vast proportion of world computer users are now phone and tablet users so yes can probably survive with a mere 32-bit OS. Developers with a decent system should have no problem at all building both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, so I don't see "cross compilation" as an issue. A far bigger issue is how the $$$$ can you support all the variants of Windows, OSX, Linux, etc. without a CI/build farm. This is why we like the JVM ;-) -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
