[Openmcl-devel] OpenMCL Versions

Phil pbpublist at comcast.net
Mon Aug 14 18:27:55 UTC 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.
>
> h




More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list