www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - 64-bit DMD for windows?

reply dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net writes:
Hi,

Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?

The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much  
into that?

Cheers, buk
Dec 14 2011
next sibling parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir thecybershadow.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 18:20:04 UTC, 
dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net wrote:
 Hi,

 Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?

 The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading 
 too much into that?

 Cheers, buk

Hi! DMD currently does not target 64-bit Windows. You may have some luck with GDC (there is a 64-bit build from July in Downloads): https://bitbucket.org/goshawk/gdc
Dec 14 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net wrote:
 Hi,

 Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?

 The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much
 into that?

 Cheers, buk

There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for?
Dec 15 2011
next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Alex_R=F8nne_Petersen?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 15-12-2011 11:47, torhu wrote:
 On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net wrote:
 Hi,

 Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?

 The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much
 into that?

 Cheers, buk

There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for?

Um, to build 64-bit programs? What else... - Alex
Dec 15 2011
prev sibling parent reply captaindet <2krnk gmx.net> writes:
On 2011-12-15 04:47, torhu wrote:
 On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net wrote:
 Hi,

 Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?

 The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too
 much into that?

 Cheers, buk

There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for?

now what is this for a strange comment? you need 64bit for windows for the same reasons than for any other platform: accessing loads of mem. yes, for some this is really important! for me it is actually a dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. det
Dec 15 2011
next sibling parent reply Mehrdad <wfunction hotmail.com> writes:
On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote:
 dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my 
 datasets often reach several GB...

 my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.

Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P

lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app.
Dec 15 2011
parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote:
 On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote:
  dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my
  datasets often reach several GB...

  my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.

Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P

lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app.

Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason. People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding. This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but I'm not too familiar with that system. So when people ask for 64-bit versions without stating why they need it, I always have to ask what features they want that the 32-bit version doesn't have. [1] http://www.ghisler.ch/wiki/index.php/Some_Files_and_Folders_Shown_by_Windows_Explorer_Are_Not_Shown_by_Total_Commander!#Solutions
Dec 16 2011
next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote:
 On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote:
 On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote:
 dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my
 datasets often reach several GB...

 my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.

Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P

lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app.

Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason. People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding. This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but I'm not too familiar with that system.

Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 16 2011
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/16/2011 1:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote:
 People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit
 programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is
 usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size,
 they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't
 actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the
 packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my
 understanding.

 This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but
 I'm not too familiar with that system.

Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care.

The Mac "universal" binaries are simply the 32 bit and 64 bit versions concatenated into one file. It doesn't save on download size.
Dec 16 2011
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-12-16 10:24, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 12/16/2011 1:17 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote:
 People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit
 programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is
 usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size,
 they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't
 actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the
 packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my
 understanding.

 This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but
 I'm not too familiar with that system.

Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care.

The Mac "universal" binaries are simply the 32 bit and 64 bit versions concatenated into one file. It doesn't save on download size.

Exactly, I didn't say anything else. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 16.12.2011 10:17, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 2011-12-16 10:10, torhu wrote:
  On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote:
  On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote:
  dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my
  datasets often reach several GB...

  my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.

Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P

lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app.

Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason. People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding. This issue doesn't exist on Windows. Probably not on OS X either, but I'm not too familiar with that system.

Mac OS X has universal binaries, that is, libraries and executables containing code for multiple architectures. All system libraries bundled with the OS are compiled (at least) both for 32 and 64bit. This makes it no problem running either 32 or 64bit applications, the user don't have to know or care.

I know that much, but I wasn't sure why they were so keen on having 64 bit versions of apps. Maybe just to accelerate the switch to 64-bits by making it easier for developers to support both. And now they have started to leave things like Carbon behind in 32-bit land. At least you can't say that Apple isn't moving forward.
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't
 x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit 
 version of
 Windows.

(Chips sold) != (Chips in use) Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense.
Dec 16 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:jcg0q8$145v$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message 
 news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't
 x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit 
 version of
 Windows.

(Chips sold) != (Chips in use) Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense.

Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) : No, I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.)
Dec 16 2011
next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 12/16/2011 9:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's
 getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are
 people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something
 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) : No,
 I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.)

I still have some customers using DMC for 16 bit work, and I still run DMC through all those tests.
Dec 16 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jcg1k1$15kk$2 digitalmars.com...
 On 12/16/2011 9:59 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know 
 that's
 getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are
 people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on 
 something
 16-bit. (In case anyone's wondering, and I'm sure some people are ;) : 
 No,
 I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for anything.)

I still have some customers using DMC for 16 bit work, and I still run DMC through all those tests.

See, everyone! There's people (plural, apparently!) even more anachronistic than me! ;)
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 17.12.2011 04:26, Trass3r wrote:
  My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company
  here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely
  some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade.

What is wrong with this world? ;)

DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only. It all depends, of course. Might be a FoxPro app or something.
Dec 17 2011
parent reply torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 17.12.2011 16:37, Trass3r wrote:
  DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.

How is that different from a Windows console app?

From an interface point of view, it's basically the same thing. They both support character graphics (like ncurses). Internally, they wouldn't have anything in common at all.
Dec 17 2011
parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 17.12.2011 17:59, torhu wrote:
 On 17.12.2011 16:37, Trass3r wrote:
   DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.

How is that different from a Windows console app?

From an interface point of view, it's basically the same thing. They both support character graphics (like ncurses). Internally, they wouldn't have anything in common at all.

The only commercial application I can think of that runs in the Windows console and uses character graphics is Far Manager. 20 years there were lots of applications like that, but they ran on top of DOS instead of Windows.
Dec 17 2011
prev sibling parent Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:
On 12/18/11 5:11 PM, dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net wrote:
 On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:20:50 -0000, Trass3r - un known.com
 <+dmd+browseruk+31526d5b7d.un#known.com spamgourmet.com> wrote:

 It's a shame that

 a) you guys apparently cannot imagine a use for a 64-bit D on Windows.

I don't think that argument has been seriously aired. Our trouble with Win64 generation is purely technological. Our toolchain would need major rework to approach that.
 b) the interfaces to this newsgroup are virtually impossible to use.

The NNTP interface works as well as NNTP itself works, so I think it the generalization is unfair. Most people including myself agree that the current web bridge sucks, and Vladimir Panteleev actually did something about it: http://dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net/discussion/group/digitalmars.D. We plan to integrate that after the holiday season.
 c) The only response from Mr Bright on the subject is "people are still
 using 16-bit".

That was but a side discussion. The situation is rather well known - accommodating Win64's object file format would be difficult.
 I've been following along with for must be close to 5 years now, waiting
 for it to mature into a usable, production quality product.
 I see I am once again too early.

Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to say Win64 generation will be done soon, or when it will be done. But this is not an issue of attitude of carelessness. Thanks, Andrei
Dec 18 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "F i L" <witte2008 gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 15 December 2011 at 21:05:05 UTC, captaindet wrote:
 On 2011-12-15 04:47, torhu wrote:
 On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net wrote:
 Hi,

 Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?

 The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading 
 too
 much into that?

 Cheers, buk

There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for?

now what is this for a strange comment? you need 64bit for windows for the same reasons than for any other platform: accessing loads of mem. yes, for some this is really important! for me it is actually a dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my datasets often reach several GB... my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them. det

Use Linux.. it's better for your health ;p jk, I'm eagerly awaiting a Win64 DMD as well.
Dec 15 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Trass3r <un known.com> writes:
 dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but my  
 datasets often reach several GB...

 my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.

Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P
Dec 15 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, December 16, 2011 10:10:57 torhu wrote:
 On 16.12.2011 00:35, Mehrdad wrote:
 On 12/15/2011 3:20 PM, Trass3r wrote:
  dealbreaker - i'd love to use D for my scientific programming, but
  my
  datasets often reach several GB...
  
  my computer has 16GB and i intend to make use of them.

Scientific programming on Windoze? You can't be serious :P

lol, that's not even the only issue. 32-bit programs can't show 64-bit dialogs. So "Open this file..." actually shows the SysWOW64 folder instead of the System32 folder, and there's _no way_ to bypass this unless you build a 64-bit app.

Most people are not actually doing scientific programming. And they don't actually need to open an open file dialog to access files that are in the "real" System32. But if they do, there are several easy solutions.[1] Another reason for needing a 64-bit program on Windows would be if you are creating a shell extension. TortoiseSVN comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors for this reason. People coming from Linux are accustomed to a running only 64-bit programs if they have a 64-bit OS. That's simply because Linux is usually distributed through downloading. To limit the download size, they leave out the 32-bit versions of libraries. Which means you can't actually run 32-bit programs without downloading and installing the packages containing those libraries first. At least that's my understanding.

On Linux, there's frequently no point in having 32-bit libraries installed. Everything is built for the native architecture, so why bother having the 32- bit libraries if they're not needed? There are the occasional exception - such as if you want to run wine in 32-bit mode, but even that can be in 64-bit now (though the risk of it not being appropriately compatible with Windows programs is greater in 64-bit, since it's newer). I would fully expect Windows to run 32-bit programs, but I would also think that 64-bit programs would become the norm such that there would eventually be no reason to have 32-bit programs aside from legacy stuff which isn't rebuilt. And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit version of Windows. As long as the 64-bit versions runs the 32-bit programs properly, I don't see any point in having a 32-bit version of the OS - especially computers increasingly have too much memory to be able to use it all with a 32-bit OS. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Jakob Ovrum" <jakobovrum gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
 considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which 
 aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even 
 sells a 32-bit version of Windows.

This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.
Dec 16 2011
parent a <a a.com> writes:
Jakob Ovrum Wrote:

 On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:
 considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which 
 aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even 
 sells a 32-bit version of Windows.

This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.

New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old) versions of intel atom are x86_64.
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday, December 16, 2011 11:09:25 Jakob Ovrum wrote:
 On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
 
 wrote:
 considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which
 aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even
 sells a 32-bit version of Windows.

This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.

Hmm. That's the first I've heard of 32-bit x86 processors in ages. All of the ones that I've seen or heard about for quite a while have been x86_64, even if they're running 32-bit Windows. The only 32-bit processors that I've heard about are ARM processors. I guess that I don't pay enough attention to that sort of stuff. - Jonathan M Davis
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrea Fontana <advmail katamail.com> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Some intel atoms still use 32-bit architecture.

Il giorno ven, 16/12/2011 alle 02.48 -0800, Jonathan M Davis ha scritto:

 On Friday, December 16, 2011 11:09:25 Jakob Ovrum wrote:
 On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
=20
 wrote:
 considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which
 aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even
 sells a 32-bit version of Windows.

This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.

Hmm. That's the first I've heard of 32-bit x86 processors in ages. All of=

 ones that I've seen or heard about for quite a while have been x86_64, ev=

 they're running 32-bit Windows. The only 32-bit processors that I've hear=

 about are ARM processors. I guess that I don't pay enough attention to th=

 sort of stuff.
=20
 - Jonathan M Davis

Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jakob Ovrum" <jakobovrum gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 12:14:50 UTC, a wrote:
 Jakob Ovrum Wrote:

 On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:
 considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days 
 which aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that 
 Microsoft even sells a 32-bit version of Windows.

This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit processors.

New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old) versions of intel atom are x86_64.

The keyword here is "sold", and besides, IA32 is still extremely common on cheap netbooks and laptops, even some recent models. The Atom line having 64 bit models doesn't mean a whole lot for the present reality. 32-bit x86 is definitely disappearing, but there is a long road ahead and 32 bit x86 is still ubiquitous. And I bet if you counted all the offices using Windows around the world, you'd find the vast majority of them using 32-bit hardware. There's no reason Microsoft shouldn't offer upgrade opportunities for that userbase as long as their new OS' work fine on old hardware.
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrea Fontana <advmail katamail.com> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Il giorno ven, 16/12/2011 alle 07.14 -0500, a ha scritto:

 Jakob Ovrum Wrote:
=20
 On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 09:56:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis=20
 wrote:
 considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which=20
 aren't x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even=20
 sells a 32-bit version of Windows.

This is simply not true. I don't know about processors sold=20 separately, but many netbooks and laptops still come with 32 bit=20 processors.

New laptops and netbooks don't. Even recent (less than two years old)=20 versions of intel atom are x86_64.

It says "instruction set" 32 bit. Released on Q2 2011...=20 http://ark.intel.com/products/55663/
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 18:01:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 No, I'm not personally using Windows's 16-bit compatability for 
 anything.)

One of the reasons I like Digital Mars is the compiler still targets 16 bit. (That was hugely important as a newb, and I don't use it much anymore, but it's very nice to have when I still want it.) When I tried college round two, assembly language class did 16 bit DOS programs too, running on Windows, of course. This was... I think 2007.
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:47:54 -0500, torhu <no spam.invalid> wrote:

 On 14.12.2011 12:54, dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net wrote:
 Hi,

 Is there a 64-bit version of DMD for windows?

 The download page offers only an x86 version. Or am I reading too much
 into that?

 Cheers, buk

There's not much you would need a 64-bit compiler for on Windows. What are you going to use it for?

Linking to 64-bit programs. Also, I work on GPGPU medical imaging problems and I have run my 3GB Tesla card out of ram on occasion.
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent =?utf-8?Q?Simen_Kj=C3=A6r=C3=A5s?= <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:59:43 +0100, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message
 news:jcg0q8$145v$1 digitalmars.com...
 "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> wrote in message
 news:mailman.1595.1324029407.24802.digitalmars-d puremagic.com...
 And considering that there are no x86 chips sold these days which  
 aren't
 x86_64, I find it rather baffling that Microsoft even sells a 32-bit
 version of
 Windows.

(Chips sold) != (Chips in use) Why would MS want to give a big F.U. to someone who wants to give MS money but isn't buying new hardware? Wouldn't make any sense.

Also, the 64-bit versions can't run 16-bit software, and yes, I know that's getting *really*, *really* old, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are people out there (companies, especially) that are still relying on something 16-bit.

My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade.
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Trass3r <un known.com> writes:
 My girlfriend is interviewing for a job at a major government company
 here in Norway, and was told that she'd need to use DOS at work. Likely
 some ancient software that no-one's ever wanted to try and upgrade.

What is wrong with this world? ;)
Dec 16 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Trass3r <un known.com> writes:
 DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.

How is that different from a Windows console app?
Dec 17 2011
parent reply Bane <branimir.milosavljevic gmail.com> writes:
Trass3r Wrote:

 DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.

How is that different from a Windows console app?

No Solitare, Facebook... much more productive!
Dec 17 2011
next sibling parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 17.12.2011 19:05, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad. Heheh.

 cmd.exe /c edit

Makes me wonder what it's for, can you run a Windows server without the GUI?
Dec 17 2011
prev sibling parent torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:
On 17.12.2011 18:21, Bane wrote:
 Trass3r Wrote:

  >  DOS software can be more productive, since it's often keyboard-only.

  How is that different from a Windows console app?

No Solitare, Facebook... much more productive!

Most likely they're running the DOS app in a window in Windows, but that's a good point.
Dec 17 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:
Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad. Heheh.

cmd.exe /c edit
Dec 17 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:14:51 -0800, torhu <no spam.invalid> wrote:

 On 17.12.2011 19:05, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
 Windows still ships with edit, which has more features than notepad.  
 Heheh.

 cmd.exe /c edit

Makes me wonder what it's for, can you run a Windows server without the GUI?

Starting with Windows Server 2008 there is something called the Server Core role, which has no GUI. And they've been improving it ever since. MS is having a back-to-the-basics push internally right now. -- Adam Wilson Project Coordinator The Horizon Project http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
Dec 17 2011
prev sibling parent dmd.20.browseruk xoxy.net writes:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:20:50 -0000, Trass3r - un known.com  
<+dmd+browseruk+31526d5b7d.un#known.com spamgourmet.com> wrote:

It's a shame that

    a) you guys apparently cannot imagine a use for a 64-bit D on Windows.
    b) the interfaces to this newsgroup are virtually impossible to use.
    c) The only response from Mr Bright on the subject is "people are still  
using 16-bit".

I've been following along with for must be close to 5 years now, waiting  
for it to mature into a usable, production quality product.
I see I am once again too early.

buk
Dec 18 2011