Poll: Primary D version

[retard]

Sat, 22 May 2010 13:59:34 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "Robert Clipsham" <robert at octarineparrot.com> wrote in message
> news:ht8m7t$2qua$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>
>>  - and should I ever feel there's a use for my apps outside of
>>  localhost
>> people will wonder why they don't support x86_64 natively (I believe
>> this will change after D2 from various comments from Walter).
> 
> Most apps don't need native x86_64. Only things that really push the
> limits of CPU/memory utilization need it, which, aside from bloatware
> (which admittedly is at epidemic levels lately), is really only a
> minority of apps. For the rest, if it already runs fine on 32-bit, then
> the same exec on a 64-bit machine is only going to run better anyway,
> and if is already ran fine before, then there's no problem.

You're suffering Stockholm syndrome there. Not having a functional 64-bit 
compiler isn't a positive feature.

On a 4 GB system you lose 600+ MB of memory when using a 32-bit operating 
system without PAE support. In addition, x86 programs might be tuned for 
i586 or i386, forcing them to not utilize only 50% of the registers 
available. In the worst case they don't even use SSE at all! Some 
assembly experts here probably know how much slower x87 is when compared 
to SSE2+.

Guess how much a 64-bit system with 4 GB of RAM costs these days - a 
quick search gave me the number $379 at

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+Factory-Refurbished+Desktop+with+AMD
+Athlon&%23153;+II+X2+Dual-Core+Processor/9880623.p?
id=1218188306780&skuId=9880623

I already have 24 GB in my Core i7 system. I can't imagine how a 32-bit 
system would benefit modern users.