[CS-FSLUG] Query: 64-bit coding comparisons

Josiah Ritchie josiah.ritchie at gmail.com
Tue Nov 17 21:00:54 CST 2009

I'd assume Windows hasn't moved to 64 for the same reason we haven't made
much progress on moving to IPv6. The motivation to make the move from a
business perspective is hidden by a rather robust band-aid system which
keeps the users for seeing the practical benefits over the pain of

I've heard it is easier to port stuff also, but I don't know a thing about


On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Ed Hurst <ehurst at soulkiln.org> wrote:

> Does anyone on the list understand Win64 coding?
> I've been surveying FOSS for Windows compared to similar apps for
> Linux/BSD. For example, quite some time ago it was a significant discussion
> among FreeBSD users about building OO.org on 64-bit. Eventually, OO.org did
> some fixing and made it easier. Even proprietary projects such as Opera have
> 64-bit binaries working fine on Linux.
> Not so much for Win64. Is there something inherent in the field which makes
> this difficult? Is MS hiding the Win7 64-bit building kits or something? I
> don't doubt almost anything not tied directly to drivers and such will run
> 32-bit on a 64-bit system, so that's not the question. I was puzzled with
> the dearth of Win64 products compared to very wide selection for Linux/BSD.
> --
> Ed Hurst
> ------------
> Associate Editor, Open for Business: http://ofb.biz/
> Applied Bible - http://soulkiln.org/
> Kiln of the Soul - http://soulkiln.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com

Our Mission
Technology and Hospitality for God's Workmen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ofb.biz/pipermail/christiansource_ofb.biz/attachments/20091117/9e0836c9/attachment.htm>

More information about the Christiansource mailing list