Re: Litestep for 64 bit

Murtaza wrote:
> 
> yes majority of the software out there is 32 bit but a lot of people have
> started using 64 bit windows. And some of them, like me, have been using
> litestep for a long time. 
> Now i dont think litestep should be limited to a 32
> bit OS because that would be leaving out alot of people from the experience of
> the best shell.
> The 32 bit version doesnt work in the 64 bit OS correctly only because of the
> fact that a 32 bit process cant open a 64 bit process. Theres no need to rewrite
> alot of code or anything. It works fine as 32 bit except that it doesnt work as
> a shell, for example it cant open a 64 bit explorer window, thus disabling the
> control panel etc. 

There is a thread about this at Litestep.net, and perhaps one at lsdev.org, too. 
   I think the basic answer is "it's not going to happen until one or more LS 
developers starts using a 64-bit system". At the moment, nobody has the ability 
to run or test a 64-bit version, and thus no incentive to develop one.

I'm also not sure that there's more than one developer (jugg) working on the 
core ATM, but that's another issue.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can't Unsubscribe? Check http://desktopian.org/listunsub.html
        LS List Homepage: http://wuzzle.org/list/litestep.php
            Get the LS FAQ: http://lsfaq.shellfront.org