begin quoting Todd Walton as of Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:31:37AM -0700: > On 5/7/05, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A lot of MSwindows applications are backwards compatible, and that's > > part of the problem, I think. Instead of making a clean break, they > > make a lot of little breaks with backwards compatiblity. MOST things > > will work if you upgrade... just enough to keep most of the users > > happy. > > > > This makes it really hard to fix truly broken things (Win32 API, > > for example). > > An InformationWeek article says that, with the 64-bit version of > Windows, there will be no DOS (which they've already dropped with XP) > and no 32-bit apps. Specifically:
How many times have they dropped DOS, honestly, really, we mean it? > "Windows XP x64 won't support DOS, 16-bit, or Posix applications, or > some older networking protocols." No POSIX? "You _must_ use Win32!" Older networking protocols? Like, oh, TCP? :) > So, that oughta be a significant break for Microsoft, if not entirely > clean. They can relieve themselves of some maintenance and support > effort, and they can deflect the heat from any unhappy customers. We'll see. But I don't think the break will necessarily mean they're going to fix the broken things. They're just going to drop the less lucrative bits. [snip] > Unrelated, the article also notes that max memory on 64-bit systems > will be 128 Gbytes of RAM and a potential for 16 terabytes of virtual > memory. It'd be hard to forget anything! On the contrary. The haystack just gets bigger. > -todd, eagerly awaiting his first 64-bit chip Get a SPARC. PPC. Alpha. There are lots to choose from. -Stewart "64-bit for many years now." Stremler
pgp4B4DjoYl1N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
