Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #116847 > unrolled thread

64 to 32 bit

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  64 to 32 bit Gerry <address@domain.com> - 2018-05-31 15:12 -0700
    Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-31 18:37 -0400
      Re: 64 to 32 bit gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-05-31 21:27 -0700
      Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 01:50 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 02:04 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-01 18:20 +1200
    Re: 64 to 32 bit Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-01 13:52 +1200
      Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-31 22:41 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-01 14:50 +0000
          Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-02 01:22 +0000
        Re: 64 to 32 bit "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 23:28 -0700
      Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 01:29 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 01:41 -0400
          Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 02:04 -0400
      Re: 64 to 32 bit Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2018-06-01 08:36 +0100
        Re: 64 to 32 bit Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-06-01 11:10 -0400
          Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 11:21 -0400
          Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 12:49 -0400
            Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 12:51 -0400
        Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-01 15:50 +0000
          Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 12:54 -0400
            Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 13:08 -0400
            Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-02 01:31 +0000
            Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:31 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:40 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:42 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-06-02 22:36 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:24 +0000
            Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:39 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:44 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:49 -0400
                  Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 15:00 -0400
                    Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 15:12 -0400
                    Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 21:44 +0000
                      Re: 64 to 32 bit "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2018-06-04 18:41 +0000
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 12:14 -0700
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-04 19:21 +0000
                          Re: 64 to 32 bit gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2018-06-04 14:39 -0700
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2018-06-02 19:56 +0100
                  Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 15:04 -0400
                    Re: 64 to 32 bit Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-06-04 18:54 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 21:43 +0000
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:29 +0000
          Re: 64 to 32 bit Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-06-01 15:09 -0400
            Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:46 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 12:00 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 16:58 +0000
                  Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:50 -0400
                    Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:54 -0400
                      Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 15:01 -0400
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 15:12 -0400
                          Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 17:56 -0400
                            Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 18:08 -0400
                              Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-03 03:55 +0000
                                Re: 64 to 32 bit "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 07:48 -0700
                                Re: 64 to 32 bit "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:28 -0700
                            Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-03 03:54 +0000
                            Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:43 +0000
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 21:37 +0000
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-03 12:07 +1200
                        Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:42 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:47 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:49 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 21:40 +0000
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:45 +0000
              Re: 64 to 32 bit Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-06-02 22:35 -0400
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-03 15:09 +1200
                Re: 64 to 32 bit Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:47 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#116874

On 2018-06-01 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> My god, people... Please stop with the FUD. 

This is not "FUD" as you call it.

Apple says performance will degrade.
We argue it won't degrade, it will just not be improved.

> optimizations benefit from this memory efficiency. When 32-bit apps are
> thrown into the mix, performance of the entire system is adversely
> affected. 

Horseradish. Running one app in 32 bit mode  does not affect the next
door app that is running in 64 bits.  The CPU's bitness is changed along
with many other things during context changes between processes.

Does this mean that more code is loaded into memory (1 copy for 64 bits,
1 for 32), yes. But in today's systems, it isn't a big thing.

Where it does matter is that currently, Apple has had to maintain 2
codebases. and that costs $ and also limits how much the kernel can be
changed. Getting rid of the 32bit APIs reduces maintennace costs and
gives more flexibility to make changes under the hood.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116875

In article <gTeQC.213030$go7.185915@fx08.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> >
> > My god, people... Please stop with the FUD. 
> 
> This is not "FUD" as you call it.

then call it 'bs'.

> Apple says performance will degrade.

no they didn't.

they said compromises.

that's a vague term that could be just about anything.

and since most apps don't push the system to the limit, even a small
performance hit won't be noticeable.

> We argue it won't degrade, it will just not be improved.

if you get a new mac with a faster processor, then performance will be
improved compared to running a 32 bit app on an older mac that's still
running sierra (or snow leopard for the holdouts, i.e., you).

> > optimizations benefit from this memory efficiency. When 32-bit apps are
> > thrown into the mix, performance of the entire system is adversely
> > affected. 
> 
> Horseradish. Running one app in 32 bit mode  does not affect the next
> door app that is running in 64 bits. 

yes it does, because the 32 bit frameworks must be loaded.

running a *second* 32 bit app has little to no effect since the hit for
the first app has already happened.

on the other hand, if you never run a 32 bit app, the 32 bit frameworks
remain dormant, as if they never existed (and at some point, they won't
exist).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116889

In message <gTeQC.213030$go7.185915@fx08.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-01 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> My god, people... Please stop with the FUD. 

> This is not "FUD" as you call it.

It moist certainly is.

> Apple says performance will degrade.
> We argue it won't degrade, it will just not be improved.

>> optimizations benefit from this memory efficiency. When 32-bit apps are
>> thrown into the mix, performance of the entire system is adversely
>> affected. 

> Horseradish. Running one app in 32 bit mode  does not affect the next
> door app that is running in 64 bits. 

And here we see another example of the rampant ignorance of some people.

Yes it does. The 32 bit app hs to load a bunch of 32 bit APIs into
memory, taking up space that would otherwise be available for more 64
but apps.

That loading also takes resources just in the act of loading.

> The CPU's bitness is changed along
> with many other things during context changes between processes.

This statement is nonsense.

> Does this mean that more code is loaded into memory (1 copy for 64 bits,
> 1 for 32), yes. But in today's systems, it isn't a big thing.

Says you, based on literally *ZERO* knowledge of what you are talking
about.

Launching 32 bit apps on iOS 10 was noticeably slower, and it could,
depending on the size of the app, cause backgrounded processes to
terminate instead of remaining suspended.

-- 
They all have husbands and wives and children and houses and dogs, and
you know, they've all made themselves a part of something and they can
talk about what they do. What am I gonna say? "I killed the president of
Paraguay with a fork. How've you been?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116909

On 2018-06-01, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-01 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> My god, people... Please stop with the FUD. 
>
> This is not "FUD" as you call it.

Yes it is. 

>> optimizations benefit from this memory efficiency. When 32-bit apps are
>> thrown into the mix, performance of the entire system is adversely
>> affected. 
>
> Horseradish. Running one app in 32 bit mode  does not affect the next
> door app that is running in 64 bits.

Of course it does. When the OS loads 32-bit libraries into memory, it
uses more CPU resources as well as using more RAM resources which
degrades performance of the entire system since CPU and RAM are finite
resources.

> Does this mean that more code is loaded into memory (1 copy for 64 bits,
> 1 for 32), yes. But in today's systems, it isn't a big thing.

It affects system performance, whether you want to believe it or not.
Apple says it does. So do software developers. Disagree all you want;
but that's reality.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116922

On 2018-06-02 11:31, Jolly Roger wrote:

> It affects system performance, whether you want to believe it or not.
> Apple says it does.


Apple MUST say it does.  Since 32bit apps don't make use of newer more
efficient APIs, Apple needs to make it clear that no system performance
tests should be done using 32 bit apps.

These are PR weasel words. In reality the performance of your 32 bit app
is not likely to degrade with the new OS. But if you recompile it as 64
bits, it will run faster.


Your app already does all that overhead of connecting to 32bit libraries
in previous versions of OS-X. It is already unable to make use of new
graphics services such as Metal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116923

In article <awBQC.274469$yc1.235773@fx40.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > It affects system performance, whether you want to believe it or not.
> > Apple says it does.
> 
> Apple MUST say it does. 

only because it does. 

> Since 32bit apps don't make use of newer more
> efficient APIs, Apple needs to make it clear that no system performance
> tests should be done using 32 bit apps.

that's not why.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116950

In article <awBQC.274469$yc1.235773@fx40.iad>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2018-06-02 11:31, Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
> > It affects system performance, whether you want to believe it or not.
> > Apple says it does.
> 
> 
> Apple MUST say it does.  Since 32bit apps don't make use of newer more
> efficient APIs, Apple needs to make it clear that no system performance
> tests should be done using 32 bit apps.

I suspect Apple is warning about this to cover its ass after the iPhone 
performance debacle last year.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117045

In message <awBQC.274469$yc1.235773@fx40.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-02 11:31, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> It affects system performance, whether you want to believe it or not.
>> Apple says it does.


> Apple MUST say it does.

Yes, because they are not liars.

> These are PR weasel words. In reality the performance of your 32 bit app
> is not likely to degrade with the new OS. But if you recompile it as 64
> bits, it will run faster.

The only weasel here is you.

> Your app already does all that overhead of connecting to 32bit libraries
> in previous versions of OS-X. It is already unable to make use of new
> graphics services such as Metal.

Previously those 320bit libraries were all there, previously loaded by
the OS. That is not the case any longer, therefore 32 bit apps cost more
to run and do not run as well as they did in previous versions.

You can deny this all you want, but you are denying entirely based on
ignorance.,


-- 
The real American folksong is a rag -- a mental jag A rhythmic tone for
the chronic blues

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116910

On 2018-06-01, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-01 11:50, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>> My god, people... Please stop with the FUD. 
>
> This is not "FUD" as you call it.

The statement I replied to - which you dishonestly trimmed in a lame
attempt to hide it - is indeed pure FUD:

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:                                         
>
> WTF does this mean? Does Apple insert a NOOP between successive
> machine instructions so the app only runs half as fast?

Apple isn't "inserting NOOPs".
Apple isn't trying to make apps "run half as fast".
Apple isn't doing *anything* nefarious.

PURE FUD.

FACT: 32-bit code causes more CPU and RAM usage which in turn causes
performance degradation on 64-bit systems. 

You've shown you are very ignorant of the engineering challenges
involved here. You're only making yourself look foolish. If that is your
goal, continue opening your trap by all means.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116924

On 2018-06-02 11:39, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> WTF does this mean? Does Apple insert a NOOP between successive
>> machine instructions so the app only runs half as fast?
> 
> Apple isn't "inserting NOOPs".
> Apple isn't trying to make apps "run half as fast".
> Apple isn't doing *anything* nefarious.
> 
> PURE FUD.


Context: Apple apologists state that 32 bits will slow down.

Other posters ask apple apologists how Apple will slow down 32 bit apps,
inserts NOOPS ?

In fact, the FUD is from the Apple Apologists who claims 32bit apps will
slow down.

They won't slow down any more than they currently run.  Apple isn't
gonna update the 32bit APIs that are going away in a year. It will just
nudge people to update their apps.

Apple will liklely introdced more efficient 64 bit APIs and 32 bit APIs
won't benefit. But that doesn't mean that 32bit apps will "slow down"
compared to now since they'll be using the same APIs as they do now.

Once Apple pulls 32bit support, then yes, the system won't be saddled
with dual APIs and its overhead. But until then, it is unlikely that
32bit apps performance will change compared to now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116926

In article <nABQC.218093$go7.64935@fx08.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> They won't slow down any more than they currently run.  Apple isn't
> gonna update the 32bit APIs that are going away in a year. It will just
> nudge people to update their apps.

the point you continue to miss is that launching a 32 bit app causes
the *entire* system to run slower.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116931

On 2018-06-02 14:49, nospam wrote:

> the point you continue to miss is that launching a 32 bit app causes
> the *entire* system to run slower.

The point you are missing is that Apple Apologists claim that 32bit apps
will run slower with the next version of OS-X.

They won't run any differently than they do now or have done since 10.6

The overhead of loading the legacy 32bit libraries isn't likely to
change with next OS-X version because Apple is unlikely to make major
modifications to the legacy 32bit APIs that are going away in 2019.

The correct message from Apple should be that system performance should
only be measured with only 64 apps loaded, and that 32bit apps do not
benefit from any performance improvements in recent OS-X versions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116936

In article <jPBQC.258715$nq5.83936@fx36.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 
> > the point you continue to miss is that launching a 32 bit app causes
> > the *entire* system to run slower.
> 
> The point you are missing is that Apple Apologists claim that 32bit apps
> will run slower with the next version of OS-X.

no, that's not what they're claiming.

> They won't run any differently than they do now or have done since 10.6

the issue is *not* how fast or slow the individual 32 bit apps run, but
what the effect of running *any* 32 bit apps have on the *rest* *of*
*the* *system*.

as has been explained to you many times, this time being yet another,
launching a 32 bit app must load the 32 bit frameworks which is what
causes a performance hit for *everything*.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116940

On 2018-06-02, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-02 14:49, nospam wrote:
>
>> the point you continue to miss is that launching a 32 bit app causes
>> the *entire* system to run slower.
>
> The point you are missing is that Apple Apologists claim that 32bit apps
> will run slower with the next version of OS-X.

No, that's just the lie *you* keep telling, FUDster.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117004

On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:44:28 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> 
wrote:

> On 2018-06-02, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > On 2018-06-02 14:49, nospam wrote:
> >
> >> the point you continue to miss is that launching a 32 bit app causes
> >> the *entire* system to run slower.
> >
> > The point you are missing is that Apple Apologists claim that 32bit apps
> > will run slower with the next version of OS-X.
> 
> No, that's just the lie *you* keep telling, FUDster.

I have a new iMac with 16 GB RAM and, in reading this exchange, I 
have trouble believing that, unless some functionality will be lost,
as a practical matter I won't be able to tell the difference. 

-- 
John Varela

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117005

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-7, John Varela wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:44:28 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> > On 2018-06-02, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > On 2018-06-02 14:49, nospam wrote:
> > >
> > >> the point you continue to miss is that launching a 32 bit app causes
> > >> the *entire* system to run slower.
> > >
> > > The point you are missing is that Apple Apologists claim that 32bit apps
> > > will run slower with the next version of OS-X.
> > 
> > No, that's just the lie *you* keep telling, FUDster.
> 
> I have a new iMac with 16 GB RAM and, in reading this exchange, I 
> have trouble believing that, unless some functionality will be lost,
> as a practical matter I won't be able to tell the difference. 
> 
> -- 
> John Varela



I'm not irate, he wants me to be but I'm enjoying watching because Steve Carroll-Petruzzellis's crap is so transparent. He purposefully did not introduce all the details that he would inevitably dismiss... and we all know why, Steve Carroll-Petruzzellis made that much clear. At least he has his own socks to back him ;) All that Steve Carroll-Petruzzellis cares about is that Steve Carroll-Petruzzellis gets to deal out his prank call and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that Snit Glasser is an involuntary target on the other end of the phone is what gets him off. Open source is only free if your time has no value. I just use score: -9999 and won't be bothered by the posts. Steve Carroll-Petruzzellis's idiocy has made a total disaster of this group via GG, so I don't make an attempt replying to the group with my usenet reader anymore. A good thing he has accomplished with this crap is that the Steve Carroll-Petruzzellis plonk has been shown to clearly be the right thing. 



--
Top Six Ways Steve Carroll-Petruzzellis Trolls!!
http://www.5z8.info/hateminorities_t7l3gt_linked-in-of-sex
https://youtu.be/D_so1dvjeyI
Jonas Eklundh Communication

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117006

On 2018-06-04, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:44:28 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-06-02, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> > On 2018-06-02 14:49, nospam wrote:
>> >
>> >> the point you continue to miss is that launching a 32 bit app causes
>> >> the *entire* system to run slower.
>> >
>> > The point you are missing is that Apple Apologists claim that 32bit apps
>> > will run slower with the next version of OS-X.
>> 
>> No, that's just the lie *you* keep telling, FUDster.
>
> I have a new iMac with 16 GB RAM and, in reading this exchange, I 
> have trouble believing that, unless some functionality will be lost,
> as a practical matter I won't be able to tell the difference. 

On macOS, I suspect unless you are running a timer, or the particular
app you are using is doing something very demanding, you won't notice
much difference in general.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117011

On 2018-06-04 19:21:52 +0000, Jolly Roger said:

> On 2018-06-04, John Varela <newlamps@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:44:28 UTC, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-06-02, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-06-02 14:49, nospam wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> the point you continue to miss is that launching a 32 bit app causes
>>>>> the *entire* system to run slower.
>>>> 
>>>> The point you are missing is that Apple Apologists claim that 32bit apps
>>>> will run slower with the next version of OS-X.
>>> 
>>> No, that's just the lie *you* keep telling, FUDster.
>> 
>> I have a new iMac with 16 GB RAM and, in reading this exchange, I
>> have trouble believing that, unless some functionality will be lost,
>> as a practical matter I won't be able to tell the difference.
> 
> On macOS, I suspect unless you are running a timer, or the particular
> app you are using is doing something very demanding, you won't notice
> much difference in general.

Well this  is all a great relief to me, the Original Poster, in that 
I'm delighted to find all the little long-abandoned and inconsequential 
utilities I've come to depend upon will continue to work.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116930

In article <nABQC.218093$go7.64935@fx08.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-06-02 11:39, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> WTF does this mean? Does Apple insert a NOOP between successive
>>> machine instructions so the app only runs half as fast?
>> 
>> Apple isn't "inserting NOOPs".
>> Apple isn't trying to make apps "run half as fast".
>> Apple isn't doing *anything* nefarious.
>> 
>> PURE FUD.
>
>
>Context: Apple apologists state that 32 bits will slow down.
>
>Other posters ask apple apologists how Apple will slow down 32 bit apps,
>inserts NOOPS ?

No, that was tongue in cheek. Couldn't you tell?

-- 
The EU Parliament. The only parliament in the world that can neither initiate
nor repeal legislation.

Robert Kimbell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116933

On 2018-06-02 14:56, Tim Streater wrote:

>>Context: Apple apologists state that 32 bits will slow down.
>>
>>Other posters ask apple apologists how Apple will slow down 32 bit apps,
>>inserts NOOPS ?
> 
> No, that was tongue in cheek. Couldn't you tell?


Exactly. I could tell. But the Apple Apologists saw this as FUD.

The point is that 32bit apps won't slow down, and Apple won't change the
32bit APIs to slow down those apps as the claim is made (and the fact
that the alrt that pops up seems to point to the apps slowing down in
future versions)

These apps will continue to run at same speed as now, and generate the
same system overhead as they do now and not benefit from enhanced 64bit
APIs which is already the case.

Ironic that the Apple Apologists are the ones to insist that 32bit apps
will slow down and accuse those who say they won't slow down of FUD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web