June 20, 2019 10:51:29 PM CEST Stephen Partington <[email protected]> wrote:
I suspect it is lazy development teams using legacy/32 bit code to save
time/money. IE ain't broke, dont need to change, Leave it. When I was doing
system integration in 2006/2008 there were still people using TSX32 and looking
for compatible hardware because they didn't want to recode for another OS.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:37 AM Steve Litt <[email protected]> wrote:
Does anybody know what percentage of computers still being used
worldwide have 32 bit hardware? My research tells me the last 32 bit
desktops were made around 2003, and 32 bit laptops around 2009. I know
all my 32 bit hardware broke long ago: I have several circa 2008
computers still running, but they're 64 bit. My two 2006 laptops and
one 2008 laptop are all 64bit.
Are a lot of people in poorer areas of the world still using 32 bit
equipment? Or is a 32 bit computer more like an antique thing now?
Its actually more complicated than just lazy development teams, but it is a
significant part of it.
(Note, when I say 32-bit I am referring to x86, and 64-bit I am referring to
amd64. ARM-based hardware is a different topic altogether)
>From a hardware perspective, virtually everything made in the last 15 years is
>64-bit, save for some Atom-based netbooks (do people still use these?). From
>that perspective it makes sense to drop 32-bit ISOs, as very little hardware
>still in use will need it. If you need a 32-bit OS, there are other distros
>besides Ubuntu that will continue to exist (Debian, Gentoo, Arch Linux 32, and
>the like). At least in the US, it is impossible to buy a brand new PC today
>that is NOT 64-bit.
That said, this isn't about hardware. This is about software, and running
32-bit software in a 64-bit environment.
A lot of legacy software was written, compiled, and released in 32-bit and not
64-bit, and has no chance of ever being ported to 64-bit. This is especially
the case with older games. To run this software in 64-bit environments will
require 32-bit libraries to make it work.
A lot of *modern* software (software released within the last year or so) is
also written and compiled in 32-bit, despite compilers allowing 64-bit support
with a single button. A lot of modern middleware and software engines ONLY
support 32-bit builds. Many device drivers (like Brother printer drivers) are
32-bit only, or depend on 32-bit libraries to function correctly (Nvidia
drivers). Why *these* developers refuse to enter the 64-bit era is beyond me.
What you can't deny is that, until now, shipping a 32-bit binary will reach the
maximum audience possible.
What the folks at Canonical are doing is removing the 32-bit compatibility
libraries from the Ubuntu repos from Ubuntu 19.10 onwards, thus preventing
future 64-bit Ubuntu installs from running 32-bit software at all. They are
asking users to find other solutions.
Hope this clears things up.
(For open source software, this is mostly a non-issue, of course)
-Matt
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
