I, as a web developer, am strongly against that move. 80% of my visitors are using 32-bits OSs.
I think this proportion is same for most of the websites, so, the move that oyu suggest will gimp much more users than will help. Also, gears isn't the only thing that is not working on 64 bits browsers, many other things not working (like applets). Also, on a 64 bits OS can be run a 32 bits browser, making 64bits OSs' users to be able to access anything. The other way around is not true. On Jun 1, 6:25 pm, hackel <[email protected]> wrote: > You claim you don't have enough resources to test both 64-bit and 32- > bit support, well that's fine. 32-bit operating systems are a thing > of the past anyway! Focus on the future... This 2-year-old patch is > so trivial, that if you would just devote your testing resources for a > little while to the 64-bit platform, I'm sure it would stabilise > quickly. 64-bit CPUs have been in use since April 2003, and Intel > hasn't even produced 32-bit CPUs since Jan 2006, according to > Wikipedia. While Windows may be slow to move to 64-bit, Linux is not, > as support has been there since before the hardware was even > available. There is no reason for any Linux user to use a 32-bit > operating system on an even remotely modern computer. Of course there > are plenty of people still using older machines, and Linux supports > them well, but those people are very unlikely to be running Google > Gears, which as a new beta product, and should be focused on current > (e.g. merely 7 years old!) technology. > > Is this project not accepting source submissions? I don't understand > why this patch hasn't been merged in all this time... I suppose I > understand no one wanting to fork a product like this, which > essentially only benefits Google. It's just sad that while the source > is open, the development is not... People have already done the work > for you, so just merge the code already! > > Just my .02... > Ryan Hayle
