"retard" <r...@tard.com.invalid> wrote in message news:ht9atu$ro...@digitalmars.com... > Sat, 22 May 2010 13:59:34 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >> 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. >
I never said it was. All I said was that most apps don't need native 64-bit versions. Don't go pulling out strawmen. > 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+. > Take a 32-bit executable optimized for i386 or i586, that runs acceptably well on a 32-bit system (say, a P4, or even a P4-era Celeron). Take that same binary, put it on a 64-bit system (say, your Core i7). It will run *at least* at fast, most likely faster. Could it be made even faster than that with a 64-bit-native recompile? Sure. But if the 32-bit binary already ran acceptably well on the 32-bit system, and even faster on the 64-bit system, then who gives a shit? > Guess how much a 64-bit system with 4 GB of RAM costs these days - a > quick search gave me the number $379 at > Guess how much more that costs me than using my 32-bit system that already does everything I need it to do? $379. Keep in mind, I live in a normal place, not some fantasy land like California where a million dollars is pocket change. If I had hundreds of dollars to toss around, I'd get my bad tooth pulled. At least then I'd be getting a non-trivial benefit.