Sat, 22 May 2010 13:59:34 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Robert Clipsham" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> >> - and should I ever feel there's a use for my apps outside of >> localhost >> people will wonder why they don't support x86_64 natively (I believe >> this will change after D2 from various comments from Walter). > > Most apps don't need native x86_64. Only things that really push the > limits of CPU/memory utilization need it, which, aside from bloatware > (which admittedly is at epidemic levels lately), is really only a > minority of apps. For the rest, if it already runs fine on 32-bit, then > the same exec on a 64-bit machine is only going to run better anyway, > and if is already ran fine before, then there's no problem.
You're suffering Stockholm syndrome there. Not having a functional 64-bit compiler isn't a positive feature. On a 4 GB system you lose 600+ MB of memory when using a 32-bit operating system without PAE support. In addition, x86 programs might be tuned for i586 or i386, forcing them to not utilize only 50% of the registers available. In the worst case they don't even use SSE at all! Some assembly experts here probably know how much slower x87 is when compared to SSE2+. Guess how much a 64-bit system with 4 GB of RAM costs these days - a quick search gave me the number $379 at http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+Factory-Refurbished+Desktop+with+AMD +Athlon&%23153;+II+X2+Dual-Core+Processor/9880623.p? id=1218188306780&skuId=9880623 I already have 24 GB in my Core i7 system. I can't imagine how a 32-bit system would benefit modern users.
