4 ms·

Your use of the fact that "almost all Linux software is readily available on 64 bit" (to imply that Windows developers are doing a bad job of porting software t

Your use of the fact that "almost all Linux software is readily available on 64 bit" (to imply that Windows developers are doing a bad job of porting software to 64bit) is misleading: there is far, far more software for Windows than there is for Linux. Of course it's not all ported to 64bit. Windows developers also seem to generally respect the notion of backwards compatibility, so I am prepared to cut them some slack. I think you're being a little bit unfair. (My personal preferences are not flowing into this assessment: I am a Linux enthusiast and in the past two years have only ever used Windows to play video games.)

JetSpiegel 12y ago
> Of course it's not all ported to 64bit. Pretty much none is ported to 64bits, including software that is available on Linux 64 bits since ever.
- Omniusaspirer 12y ago
  This is probably because many major developers say they at best would gain ~1% more performance out of the change for a decently large investment of man hours. The opinion of those devs (whether you or I agree with them or not) is that time can be better spent making other improvements to their codebases.
- lttlrck 12y ago
  "Pretty much none"? It's more likely that "pretty much" every application that would actually benefit from being 64 bit is already ported.
  - monochr 12y ago
    Yes, like chromium, something I've been using as a 64bit native app since 2009 on Linux.