3 ms·
I think you're in a minority. Are there any 32-bit CPUs being produced for the mass market these days? Making a 64-bit only software is not only about wanting m
by self_awareness 8y ago
I think you're in a minority. Are there any 32-bit CPUs being produced for the mass market these days? Making a 64-bit only software is not only about wanting more than 4gb of ram; it's about debugging support, tooling, installation size and installation packages, etc. It's easier to distribute 64-bit only software than both 32-bit and 64-bit, and you can't distribute 32-bit only software because:
1. macOS will deprecate 32-bit completely soon,
2. Linux needs 32-bit libs installed on the system, and many people don't have them,
3. Windows has really good backward compatibility and still supports 32-bit. But it's the only system.
So, distributing a 64-bit-only software actually makes sense.
- beatgammit 8y agoThis exactly. When I install something, if it pulls in a ton of stuff, I'll reevaluate whether I actually need it. In fact, I was pretty excited when I finally got rid of my dependency on 32-bit stuff and could eliminate the 32-bit repo. I like 64-bit because it keeps my system clean, but because it's "better". I definitely want a 64-bit OS so some things can use more than 4GB RAM, so why have two copies of everything? Just standardize on the thing nearly everyone uses: 64-bit.
- userbinator 8y agoAre there any 32-bit CPUs being produced for the mass market these days? Can we stop assuming that people are always going to have the latest hardware? Even then, 32-bit SoCs running Linux are still pretty common in various embedded things and other low-power devices --- exactly the use-case for a small and native chat client.
- marines 8y agoYou don't need the latest hardware to have a 64-bit CPU. Slack client on an embedded platform? Are you ok?