64-bit apps
-
I'd say you are correct. In the case of the examples you give, there are no reason to switch to 64 bits.
I'd rather be phishing!
ASLR[^] works much better for protecting a program against attack if it has a 64bit address space to work with than if it's limited to 32 bits.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
Most .NET apps are 64 bits on 64 bits OS! :laugh:
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
Only if they don't have any supporting libraries that tie into native code. I've got multiple solutions that I had to force to 32bit mode because of a single C++ lib dependency hidden in some other supporting component because MS doesn't have any way to either create dual 32/64bit native dlls or to bundle both with a .net solution and pick the right one automatically. :mad: :((
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
-
Only if they don't have any supporting libraries that tie into native code. I've got multiple solutions that I had to force to 32bit mode because of a single C++ lib dependency hidden in some other supporting component because MS doesn't have any way to either create dual 32/64bit native dlls or to bundle both with a .net solution and pick the right one automatically. :mad: :((
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt
Yeah this quite irritating you can't bundle multiple CPU support in one unit.. :| Though you can in WinRT! If only it was not only for Win8 "Modern app" only! :~
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Most .NET apps are 64 bits on 64 bits OS! :laugh:
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
Would I be correct in saying that most Windows apps have no 64-bit version? I know this is true for Visual Studio, and it also seems to be the case for tools like editplus and irfanview.
Fractal Extreme runs twice as fast in 64 bit mode. Possibly because of the eight extra 128 bit SIMD registers available in 64 bit mode (XMM8-XMM15). Taking days to generate Mandelbrot zoom movies I upgraded to Win7 64 bit specifically for this speedup.
-
Heck even debugging a single program that is intended to run on a 64 bit OS because it needs the extra memory. I failed to see his logic. The only people that should still be on 32 bit are those that refer to the internet as "That email thingy".
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The only people that should still be on 32 bit are those that refer to the internet as "That email thingy".
Sorry old chap, but I must disagree there. If you've got under 4gb of memory, there's no advantage to building a 64-bit application in many, many cases. In fact, as you're no doubt aware, 64bit instructions are longer and can have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of the machine, by reducing the amount of RAM available for data. So, with an older machine that's still being put to useful work, a 32bit OS can be a better choice. Not sure how many 64bit smart phones/tablets there are - each can do useful work too. Nevermind the fact that you can't run a 64bit OS on a raspberry pi or any one of a number of other embedded solutions.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The only people that should still be on 32 bit are those that refer to the internet as "That email thingy".
Sorry old chap, but I must disagree there. If you've got under 4gb of memory, there's no advantage to building a 64-bit application in many, many cases. In fact, as you're no doubt aware, 64bit instructions are longer and can have the effect of reducing the effectiveness of the machine, by reducing the amount of RAM available for data. So, with an older machine that's still being put to useful work, a 32bit OS can be a better choice. Not sure how many 64bit smart phones/tablets there are - each can do useful work too. Nevermind the fact that you can't run a 64bit OS on a raspberry pi or any one of a number of other embedded solutions.
enhzflep wrote:
If you've got under 4gb of memory, there's no advantage to building a 64-bit application in many, many cases.
And that in there is the rub. Why would you have so little RAM? A desktop has a purpose. At this point in age if you are using that little RAM what ever you are doing with it may be better suited on a different device.
enhzflep wrote:
Not sure how many 64bit smart phones/tablets there are - each can do useful work too.
Nevermind the fact that you can't run a 64bit OS on a raspberry pi or any one of a number of other embedded solutions.Maybe now you are seeing my point. Those would be different devices. No my toothbrush need not be 64 bit. It has a single purpose. But as for my desktop its purpose now requires it to be 64 bit and the applications that go with it run better if they are 64 bit as well. Would you use a Tank to tend to a domestic disturbance?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
enhzflep wrote:
If you've got under 4gb of memory, there's no advantage to building a 64-bit application in many, many cases.
And that in there is the rub. Why would you have so little RAM? A desktop has a purpose. At this point in age if you are using that little RAM what ever you are doing with it may be better suited on a different device.
enhzflep wrote:
Not sure how many 64bit smart phones/tablets there are - each can do useful work too.
Nevermind the fact that you can't run a 64bit OS on a raspberry pi or any one of a number of other embedded solutions.Maybe now you are seeing my point. Those would be different devices. No my toothbrush need not be 64 bit. It has a single purpose. But as for my desktop its purpose now requires it to be 64 bit and the applications that go with it run better if they are 64 bit as well. Would you use a Tank to tend to a domestic disturbance?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
Of course many things can be done faster with newer hardware. The fact is however, that in many cases, this is simply not a viable option. A not-for-profit organization I'm involved with is in the process of converting local newspapers from 1958-1972 into a digital, searchable format. It is simply not possible that the organization's computers are all upgraded, the finances just don't exist. So, the 15 or so 2gb Core2-Duos have the newest 386 build of Xubuntu on them and work perfectly fine for the purpose. A 64 bit build would actually make them less effective in fact. Sure, power-users of desktop pcs would be better served by a 64bit os than they would by a 32bit one - that's not what you said, nor what I responded to. Your desktop is also undoubtedly a different case again. The point is, your remark was disparaging of those that (for whatever reason) aren't using a 64bit os. It was also generalized and made no distinction between platforms or intended use. It was rather difficult to tell if you were being imprecise or just a buffoon. I expected it was the first and am happy to have that impression re-enforced by your response. :-D Nope, no tanks welcome at domestic disturbances. Which is a different set of words used to convey my point. Don't need a 20lb sledgie to break open peanuts. Nor can you bust concrete with a nut-cracker. One should simply use the most appropriate tool for the job at hand. Have a 5 for the tank question, I'm still grinning!
-
Of course many things can be done faster with newer hardware. The fact is however, that in many cases, this is simply not a viable option. A not-for-profit organization I'm involved with is in the process of converting local newspapers from 1958-1972 into a digital, searchable format. It is simply not possible that the organization's computers are all upgraded, the finances just don't exist. So, the 15 or so 2gb Core2-Duos have the newest 386 build of Xubuntu on them and work perfectly fine for the purpose. A 64 bit build would actually make them less effective in fact. Sure, power-users of desktop pcs would be better served by a 64bit os than they would by a 32bit one - that's not what you said, nor what I responded to. Your desktop is also undoubtedly a different case again. The point is, your remark was disparaging of those that (for whatever reason) aren't using a 64bit os. It was also generalized and made no distinction between platforms or intended use. It was rather difficult to tell if you were being imprecise or just a buffoon. I expected it was the first and am happy to have that impression re-enforced by your response. :-D Nope, no tanks welcome at domestic disturbances. Which is a different set of words used to convey my point. Don't need a 20lb sledgie to break open peanuts. Nor can you bust concrete with a nut-cracker. One should simply use the most appropriate tool for the job at hand. Have a 5 for the tank question, I'm still grinning!
True that finances can be a limiting factor. But I disagree that a 64 bit system would make it less effective. I would think that an adjusted work flow that is taking advantage of a better system would streamline the process. But of course I do not know the details of the workflow you are referring to. But back to finances. Just because the cash is not there does not change the truth. That being the person/team should be using a 64 bit system (or whatever the "improvement" is). Not having financials to make it happen is not justification it being less effective. It is only justification for cost savings on the end goal. Yes I was not clear about the usage case, but I had thought that was implied from the OP.
enhzflep wrote:
Have a 5 for the tank question, I'm still grinning!
:)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
