On 05/22/2010 02:22 PM, retard wrote:
Sat, 22 May 2010 13:59:34 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Robert Clipsham"<rob...@octarineparrot.com> wrote in message
news:ht8m7t$2qu...@digitalmars.com...
- 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.
You both have a point. Clearly not a lot of individual applications
really need more than 4GB (though unfortunately, many are pushing up for
the wrong reasons), but then a whole category of them would greatly
benefit of expanded RAM availability.
Andrei
