On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Mark Carter <alt.mcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/07/2017 20:31, Darren Duncan wrote: > >> I would question why any desktop computer manufacturers were still even >> shipping non-64-bit capable hardware in 2010. >> > I dual-boot (rarely) with it, and it runs 64-bit Ubuntu. I am using a > Dell, which came with 32-bit Win 7. > For quite a long time, the "common wisdom" was that 64 bit was a waste of memory on smaller machines and caused compatibility problems, so 64-bit-capable hardware running 32-bit OSes was quite common. (For Windows the latter is actually true, insofar as 64 bit processes can't load 32 bit DLLs and 32 bit programs are actually run in a minimal hypervisor on Win10. This was less well developed when Win7 was current; the hypervisor only ran WinXP iirc, not 32 bit W7.) -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
