> the M$ response about having to rewrite for 64-bit technology... yes, this has always been the response from Ken Levy (and others), but I'm not completely convinced by it:-
1) they did it for 16 to 32 bit 2) I have a better idea <© a.f.d 2007> - ms have a *lot* of 32-bit code, mostly in C[++] - so produce a C++ compiler that is fully compatible with the existing 32-bit compiler but producing 64-bit machine code. Andrew Davies MBCS CITP - AndyD 8-)# ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with any queries. ********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
