Download count....

[CommonTater]

Just curiosity really...

But does anyone know how often Pelles C has been downloaded?

[Bitbeisser]

Just curiosity really...

But does anyone know how often Pelles C has been downloaded?

I guess Pelle would know, at least for the smorgasbordet.com site.

One pellesc.de, it shows 40407+14586 (32/64bit) for v6.0 and 4335+1653 for v6.50 (haven't checked on the older versions)

Don't know if the later already satisfies your curiosity... 

Ralf

[CommonTater]

Just curiosity really...

But does anyone know how often Pelles C has been downloaded?

I guess Pelle would know, at least for the smorgasbordet.com site.

One pellesc.de, it shows 40407+14586 (32/64bit) for v6.0 and 4335+1653 for v6.50 (haven't checked on the older versions)

Don't know if the later already satisfies your curiosity... 

Ralf

Half of it anyway

There's quite a split between the 32 and 64 bit versions, isn't there?
Also between 6.0 and 6.5...

Interesting...

[Bitbeisser]

There's quite a split between the 32 and 64 bit versions, isn't there?

Who needs 64bit? >

Also between 6.0 and 6.5...

That's probably because 6.50 is still labeled as "beta" and/or "Release Candiate"...

Ralf

[Stefan Pendl]

Who needs 64bit? >

Me.

I actually compile for x86, AMD64 and IA64 using the Server 2003 DDK.

For projects that do not need IA64 Pelles C is used.

Remember that Server 2008 R2 does only ship as AMD64, so 64-bit is the future.

[Bitbeisser]

Remember that Server 2008 R2 does only ship as AMD64, so 64-bit is the future.

Well, for one, the statement recarding Windows Server 2008R2 is wrong, unless you made just a typo with AMD64 here...

And the fact that the OS is 64bit does in no way mean that your application has to be written in a 64bit compiler version as well...

Ralf

[Stefan Pendl]

Well, for one, the statement recarding Windows Server 2008R2 is wrong, unless you made just a typo with AMD64 here...

Sure it includes WOW64, but it needs 64-bit capable hardware, since it is only shipping as 64-bit O/S, aka x64.

And the fact that the OS is 64bit does in no way mean that your application has to be written in a 64bit compiler version as well...

Sure there are applications which are perfectly working as 32-bit application on a 64-bit system.

It is always depending on what your program does and how easy it is to implement natively.
If you are perfectly happy with WOW64 stay on 32-bit.

I write customization DLLs for a high end CAD application, so I am forced to support 64-bit.
The next release of the application is only supporting Windows 7 x64, due to memory consumption and other things.
A 32-bit version is still released, but if a problem is not reproducible on 64-bit it will hardly get fixed.

[CommonTater]

who needs 64bit? >

LOL... don't we all?

That's probably because 6.50 is still labeled as "beta" and/or "Release Candiate"...
Ralf

Good point...

Which raises a second question... Does anyone know when this version is going to "current version" status?

[Bitbeisser]

Well, for one, the statement recarding Windows Server 2008R2 is wrong, unless you made just a typo with AMD64 here...

Sure it includes WOW64, but it needs 64-bit capable hardware, since it is only shipping as 64-bit O/S, aka x64.

My point is that it does not rely on AMD but works just fine on any 64bit capable Intel CPU (and those are a lot more than AMDs out there)...

And the fact that the OS is 64bit does in no way mean that your application has to be written in a 64bit compiler version as well...

Sure there are applications which are perfectly working as 32-bit application on a 64-bit system.

It is always depending on what your program does and how easy it is to implement natively.
If you are perfectly happy with WOW64 stay on 32-bit.

Try anything networking related and 64bit becomes a hindrance...

I write customization DLLs for a high end CAD application, so I am forced to support 64-bit.
The next release of the application is only supporting Windows 7 x64, due to memory consumption and other things.
A 32-bit version is still released, but if a problem is not reproducible on 64-bit it will hardly get fixed.

Used to do CAD software development two decades ago. We could do more on the early 386'ers than most mini-computer based systems like Medusa or CATIA for example could do, not to mention from toys like AutoCrap. The company just could not compete with the prices of the later and that was what it was compared to even though it played in a complete different league...

Ralf

[Bitbeisser]

who needs 64bit? >

LOL... don't we all?

Not me. All my real "work"stations are (XP) 32 bit, so are my data servers (Windows Server 2003)  as well as email and web server (BlueOnyx). And my Mac too (IIRC, 4 year old 26" iMac, running 10.6.8 )

Which raises a second question... Does anyone know when this version is going to "current version" status?

Only a lonely Danish guy will know... 

Ralf

[Stefan Pendl]

My point is that it does not rely on AMD but works just fine on any 64bit capable Intel CPU (and those are a lot more than AMDs out there)...

I was referring to the processor architecture, which is AMD64, but it might have been better to use x86_64.
I think the reason for the 64-bit processor architecture naming convention confusion comes from Intel using AMDs 64-bit instruction set, so they are AMD64 processors in the core.

The whole point is that future generations of Windows releases will require 64-bit hardware in the end, despite of supporting 32- and 64-bit applications.

[Stefan Pendl]

Only a lonely Danish guy will know... 

I think he is Swedish, but in the end he is a northern European or Scandinavian.

[Stefan Pendl]

Used to do CAD software development two decades ago. We could do more on the early 386'ers than most mini-computer based systems like Medusa or CATIA for example could do, not to mention from toys like AutoCrap. The company just could not compete with the prices of the later and that was what it was compared to even though it played in a complete different league...

So you might know Unigraphics, now called Siemens PLM NX

[Bitbeisser]

Used to do CAD software development two decades ago. We could do more on the early 386'ers than most mini-computer based systems like Medusa or CATIA for example could do, not to mention from toys like AutoCrap. The company just could not compete with the prices of the later and that was what it was compared to even though it played in a complete different league...

So you might know Unigraphics, now called Siemens PLM NX

"Knowing" is relative, but I remember them. Was used a lot together with CATIA in the automobile industry and had to fight with their IGES export/import filters... :-(

Ralf

[Bitbeisser]

Only a lonely Danish guy will know... 

I think he is Swedish, but in the end he is a northern European or Scandinavian.

Oops, my bad, you're right he's Swedish.

I claim feeling severely hungry at the time of writing it for the mistake... 

Ralf