From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWeJ4-0002S2-TM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:59:42 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HWeJ3-0002Qd-Hi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:59:42 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HWeJ3-0002Qa-DE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:59:41 -0500
Received: from static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.162.243.5]
	helo=grelber.thyrsus.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rob@landley.net>) id 1HWeGX-000146-Rj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:57:06 -0400
From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] 0.9.0 and svn don't build with
	=?iso-8859-1?q?-march=3Dpentium2=09etc=2E=3B__was=3A_Latest_SVN_fails_to?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?_build_on_Fedora_Core_6?= (same with 0.9.0)
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:56:59 -0400
References: <20070317143730.1befbf94@neuling>
	<20070323211124.4d7d7b79@neuling> <46051A67.6060300@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <46051A67.6060300@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200703281556.59315.rob@landley.net>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Sunil Amitkumar Janki <psychicistnonconformist@gmail.com>

On Saturday 24 March 2007 8:32 am, Sunil Amitkumar Janki wrote:
> Anyhow, I expect 32-bit hardware to gradually die because of wear and 
> tear in the next few years and the replacement will be 64-bit hardware so
> the problem will solve itself that way.

Specifically, in 2008 32-bit x86 hardware both drops below 50% of the 
installed base and stops being a commercial viable option for new sales in 
the desktop or laptop space.  (Eric Raymond and I did research about this, 
and made a table and everything. :)

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html#id248066

Rob
-- 
Vista: Windows Millenium Second Edition