On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 05:35:50PM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote: > > I imagine the arguments where similar when operating systems moved from 16 > > bit to 32 bit. ;) > > Not really, because the 32 bit hardware was more widespread when > Windows 95 came out. At the time, all software written since 1992 was > 32 bit-compatible, in fact, I cannot think of any major applications > that wouldn't run on 32 bit. Contrast that to the delay in getting 64 > applications _years_ after 64 bit hardware has been available.
That's quite PC-centric. The VAX was 32 bit, for instance. IIRC in the 80-s and early 90-s one atvantage the GNU tools had was that they could start from a clean 32bit codebase compared to the legacy UNIX code. Alpha was available in the early 90-s. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [email protected] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [email protected] | | best ICQ# 16849754 | | friend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
