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!
Maximilien wrote:
In the case of the examples you give, there are no reason to switch to 64 bits.
In my experience some of the image manipulation programs (like photoshop) seems twice as fast at startup and some operations when using 64-bit version on 64-bit OS. This is quite logical, since image manipulation require reading of pixels usually AARRGGBB format, which is 32-bit. If using aligned words, you can get twice as many pixels from memory in one op.
-
I'm not sure that's true. If you compile with x64 your program has more registers available. Also according to this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa384219%28v=vs.85%29.aspx[^] "WOW64 adds significant overhead if two or more instances of the same 32-bit application are running concurrently"
-
harold aptroot wrote:
on an Unobtainium processor
FTFY!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
harold aptroot wrote:
on an Unobtainium processor
FTFY!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
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.
All my windows apps are 64 bit
-
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.
When it comes to .net apps, there is an overhead when compiled as 64bit currently as the 64bit JIT compiler is optimized for services rather than applications. However the CLR team is currently re-writing all their compilers to a common bases that will improve the start up time for 64 bit .net apps.
-
I did not say that; NOT ALL applications gain from being in 64bit. Other than having access to more memory, there is no real gain in performance. In the examples (irfanview, editplus, VS), there is no advantages to convert to 64 bits; they all are working on relatively small dataset. We are working on an engineering software, we work with 3D models and large datasets; and in the last couple of years, our clients were working with large datasets and we had no choice of switching to 64bit (with a lot of pain,sweat and swear due to very old legacy code).
I'd rather be phishing!
That might be true for most users; but the 32bit nature of VS is causing problems for some large software projects. Mozilla's been bumping into memory limits with MS's 32bit linker for years. And while 64bit isn't a headline target for the VS team, a few years ago (vs2010 release???) when asked they blogged that they'd been making sure that each component they touched in development was made 64bit compatible when they were done along with whatever functional changes were responsible for it being updated in the first place. The intent was to get most of the way there organically so that wrapping up the remaining loose ends would be a reasonably sized task as part of a release as opposed to something that would consume all of their work for a few years.
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
-
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.
