On Friday, February 14, 2014 17:50:56 Steve Teale wrote: > On Friday, 14 February 2014 at 00:10:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > But the fact that you're even asking the question shows that > > you have a very > > different world-view than I do with regards to computers. > > > > - Jonathan M Davis > > Jonathan, I find your response distinctly elitist. > > I certainly do have a different world view. I live in Africa > where most of what you can get is probably old stock that got > dumped here. Of the last 3 2G memory cards I bought, 2 were duff, > and that's at $50 apiece, and little chance of getting your money > back. > > Even when I got two that worked, my motherboard could only > support 3 of the 4G, even though the processor is quite capable. > > We're stuck with 32 bit for a long time here, and telling us to > get into the 21st century doesn't help much.
I was merely indicating what my expectations were based on what I know and have seen, not trying to insist that anyone who didn't match them needed to get a new computer or anything like that. And from the sounds of it, you're stuck with hardware that's nearly a decade old, which is not the sort of hardware that I'd expect a software developer to have. So, if anything, I feel sorry for you. I'm certainly not trying to look down on you. But it doesn't really change my take on 32-bit vs 64-bit. I still wouldn't use a 32-bit OS unless I had no other choice, and it is only a matter of time until 32-bit is essentially dead - especially outside of Windows. And it would be nice if we could get to the point where everyone is on 64-bit OSes so that we can stop worrying about about supporting 32-bit software outside of emulators or virtual machines. But regardless of the situation in the third world, as long as Microsoft continues to sell 32-bit versions of Windows, we're still going to have at least some 32-bit software. - Jonathan M Davis
