I do understand it isn't simply just a matter of compiling a 64-bit build. Knowing that it is on the TODO list is good enough for me!
Thanks! On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Andras Timar <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/11/4 Frank Esposito <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:36 AM, T. J. Brumfield <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> There is an open OOo bug that is over 5 years old. > >> > >> http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=46594 > >> > >> It seems that OOo developers felt this was an unnecessary feature. > However, > >> as users have commented in that bug report, the 32-bit version doesn't > work > >> in 64-bit Terminal Servers, and Microsoft does not ship a 32-bit server > >> product anymore. Furthermore, Base can not connect to a 64-bit ODBC data > >> source. > >> > >> Given that Microsoft has been shipping 64-bit operating systems for 7 > years > >> now, and that there are legitimate use cases where OOo/LibO can't fufil > >> user > >> needs without a 64-bit Windows build, shouldn't this be reevaluated? > >> > >> And from a pure perception standpoint, it looks like OOo/LibO is behind > MS > >> Office in this regard, given that MS Office offers a 64-bit version. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> > >> > > > > +2 for 64-bit builds > > > It is on the TODO list. It needs some porting efforts, however. It is > not as simple as recompiling the source code with a 64-bit compiler. > > Regards, > Andras > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: Email to > [email protected]<discuss%[email protected]> > Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** > -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [email protected] Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
