Poll: Primary D version
re at tard.com.invalid
Sat May 22 12:22:39 PDT 2010
Sat, 22 May 2010 13:59:34 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Robert Clipsham" <robert at octarineparrot.com> wrote in message
> news:ht8m7t$2qua$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> - and should I ever feel there's a use for my apps outside of
>> 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
Guess how much a 64-bit system with 4 GB of RAM costs these days - a
quick search gave me the number $379 at
I already have 24 GB in my Core i7 system. I can't imagine how a 32-bit
system would benefit modern users.
More information about the Digitalmars-d