> Even on a 64-bit processor, there’s usually no reason to run 64-bit > Windows unless you have more than 4 GB of RAM, a threshold we didn’t pass > very long ago. Yes, please remember to keep the "addressable memory limits" linkage to "processor bitted-ness" is a Microsoft Only phenomenon. You do NOT need 64-bit processors or 64-bit Operating systems to be able to address more than 4 GB of physical RAM. In fact that there are 32-bit versions of Windows (NT 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, 2003 etc) which have been compiled without this artificially imposed limitation. You pay more for "properly written and compiled" software however because, well, it is easy to do stupid things and impose stupid limits for no reason and you need higher wattage (therefore more expensive people) if you want software that is not bounded by a crapload of inane if not brain-dead) design decisions. It is also quite profitable to claim that your prior incompetencies were to blame on "something else" and if everyone would just spend a boatload of money and replace all the defective crap we sold them with a new boatload of defective crap (every six months), a very few of the deliberately imposed limitations will be removed (plus we make yet another boatload of money by ripping off the customer).
> Or maybe you’d like to look to a less legacy-bound company? Say, Google, > who ships Chrome still built as 32-bit, originally for compatibility with > 32-bit NSAPI plugins. Since they dropped that, I can only guess why > they’re still building 32-bit binaries, and that guess is that with the > tab-per-process isolation, no single tab needs more than 4 GB of VM space. Or they are using defective compilers (primary supplier in that field is Microsoft) that cannot switch memory models without re-writing the code. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
