[lsb-discuss] Multi-lib standards

Anthony W. Youngman wol at thewolery.demon.co.uk
Mon Nov 23 13:40:03 PST 2009

In message <4B0AE280.8050801 at gmail.com>, Bruce Dubbs 
<bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> writes
>tytso at mit.edu wrote:
>> And given that there are some Atom chips which are 32-bit only, and a
>> number of people who tend to run 32-bit VM's (because they want to
>> conserve memory), there will be many ISV's who may very well decide
>> they only want to ship 32-bit products, just to simplify their
>> build/test matrices.
>Of course there should be continued support for 32-bit systems.  The
>vast majority of computer users don't *need* 64-bit capability, but many
>think they do.
>I wonder how much memory users actually save by running in 32-bit mode
>on 64-bit systems.  Memeory is pretty cheap, but there are also many who
>persist on running on 512M when memory is under $40/G.

PLEASE DON'T assume that just because you can afford a humungous system, 
that others can too.

Oh - and your argument that memory is cheap is TOTALLY SPECIOUS. I'm 
typing this on a "more than powerful enough" system that has (admittedly 
more than 512Mb) 768Mb. But to upgrade my RAM I will need a new 
motherboard to put it in, which means a new CPU, and a new hard drive, 
and probably a new power supply and/or case - in short, basically, I 
need a new computer! (To give you an idea, the bios copyright is 1999 
and the processor is a Socket A Athlon).

Anthony W. Youngman - anthony at thewolery.demon.co.uk

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list