Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Linux Kernel: "Drop Support For x86-32"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,650

    Default Linux Kernel: "Drop Support For x86-32"

    Phoronix: Linux Kernel: "Drop Support For x86-32"

    An alleged Linux user-space developer has called for dropping x86 32-bit support from the Linux kernel...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE2NzE

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    tbh i think windows 7 should've been the last serious 32 bit release - it would help force people to move away from their P4s. as for linux, there hasn't really been a compelling reason to use 32 bit unless you are a p4 (or older) user. the only difference is linux is still pretty good with that older hardware, so ditching support for it would be annoying for such users. however, those users seem to be left in the dust in many ways anyway, mainly due to GPU support associated by the P4's (and older) generation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    So... uh... Michael pretty much admits that he wrote this article to troll the forums. Huh.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix
    ... [the] Linux kernel is still supporting hardware like the Motorola 68000 (m68k), IBM S390, SPARC, and other older CPU architectures ...
    Hey, IBM just released a new S390 processor in 2010, the z196. Technically these processors support z/Architecture 3, which supports 64-bit mode, 32-bit data/31-bit addressing from the namesake S/390, and 32-bit data/24-bit addressing from the S/360. For linux purposes, s390 is used for 31-bit kernels vs. s390x for 64-bit kernels. Oracle is still building SPARC machines as well. Hell, I think you can even buy new 68k chips (microcontrollers, usually). Just because it is older, doesn't mean it isn't in use (also, SPARC is newer than x86...).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    tbh i think windows 7 should've been the last serious 32 bit release
    Personally, I was surprised that Windows 7 supported 32 bit processors at all, considering the system requirements for Vista. They improved things quite a bit from Vista, but I still think 7 should have been 64-bit only. Windows 8, definitely should have been 64-bit only (on x86). I'm guessing they left the support in for 32-bit tablets.

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Sorry, early morning here but... did I just read an article about some dude trolling LKMS?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r1348 View Post
    Sorry, early morning here but... did I just read an article about some dude trolling LKMS?
    You did. I think Michael got a good laugh out of it, and wanted Phoronix readers to get a laugh out of it too.

    Also, this thing started about two months ago already, at the nvnews forums: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=186238

    Basically: LOL

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adler187 View Post
    Windows 8, definitely should have been 64-bit only (on x86). I'm guessing they left the support in for 32-bit tablets.
    It certainly has nothing to do with supporting currently existing software that all of their customers are using.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    667

    Default

    I bet that the secret alleged troll was indeed....the guy responsible by PulseAudio and Systend...


    It's moments like this that make me desire to reinstall Windows XP 32 bit....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •