[Openmcl-devel] OpenMCL Versions
pbpublist at comcast.net
Mon Aug 14 14:27:55 EDT 2006
The 64-bit argument didn't fully register with me ;-) and I agree
with your other points. I was mainly thinking of anyone out there
who might be deploying apps via OpenMCL as there will be millions of
32-bit intel machines out there (or 10's of millions) before Apple
fully moves to 64-bit (i.e. macbooks and minis will probably stay 32-
bit for quite a while.) If no one is deploying apps (i.e. its being
used as a development platform only) then that point is moot as I
also plan to make my first Intel Mac 64-bit.
On Aug 14, 2006, at 2:03 PM, Hamilton Link wrote:
> Phil makes a good point and I'd normally be inclined to agree, but
> I am guessing that the openmcl user base will be moving to Core 2
> faster than an intel 32-bit port will happen, particularly since
> everyone already knows that 64-bit will be supported and at least
> for the moment 32-bit isn't. I'm going to be jumping from my
> various PPC systems straight into the 64-bit intel world, as has
> Gary, and I suspect if people want intel32 support they need to
> start making more noise than they have so far. Which seems less
> likely to me since now they can just buy a Mac Pro or wait a bit
> for Merom laptops.
> 64-bit isn't as important as the number of registers and other
> things, and iirc those differences more than the address space are
> what make an intel32 port no small amount of hassle compared to the
> 64-bit port (GB could shed more light). Certainly this hassle has
> so far offset the concern of increased memory usage and executable
> size, which aren't a big deal at least IMHO.
> If I was a betting man I'd wager Clozure wouldn't snub a paying
> customer with vested interest in 32-bit intel support, but for that
> kind of money most of this list could buy 64-bit systems.
More information about the Openmcl-devel