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

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

64 to 32 bit

Started byGerry <address@domain.com>
First post2018-05-31 15:12 -0700
Last post2018-06-05 09:47 +0000
Articles 8 on this page of 68 — 13 participants

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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#117047

FromLewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Date2018-06-05 09:42 +0000
Message-ID<slrnphcmnm.1e03.g.kreme@Snow.local>
In reply to#116932
In message <tQBQC.259043$nq5.95819@fx36.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-02 14:54, nospam wrote:

>> no, the claim is that 32 bit apps slow down the entire computer, for
>> reasons that have been explained a few times already.
>> 

> So you're changing your claim. The original claim was that with the
> upcoming version of OS-X, 32bit apps will run slower.

The will LAUNCH slower, and they will cause the entire system to be
slower.

-- 
TYPOS AR EHT FAULT OF GIN

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

#116925

FromJF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca>
Date2018-06-02 14:47 -0400
Message-ID<jDBQC.303970$br4.168994@fx34.iad>
In reply to#116911
On 2018-06-02 11:46, Jolly Roger wrote:

> "In OS X v10.6 and later, most built-in apps are 64-bit. The first time
> you run a 32-bit application, all of the 32-bit framework slices must be
> loaded into memory. This means that loading older, 32-bit-only
> applications causes significant memory pressure, particularly on
> computers with limited RAM. This often outweighs the additional memory
> impact caused by larger data structures."



So you agree then that this overhead has existed since 10.6 and that
nothing will change with the next version (likely the lsat to support
32bit APIs)


Stating that 32bit apps will slow down is plain wrong and that is the
FUD. They won't slow down compared to how they hyave been running since
10.6.

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

#116927

Fromnospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Date2018-06-02 14:49 -0400
Message-ID<020620181449064087%nospam@nospam.invalid>
In reply to#116925
In article <jDBQC.303970$br4.168994@fx34.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > "In OS X v10.6 and later, most built-in apps are 64-bit. The first time
> > you run a 32-bit application, all of the 32-bit framework slices must be
> > loaded into memory. This means that loading older, 32-bit-only
> > applications causes significant memory pressure, particularly on
> > computers with limited RAM. This often outweighs the additional memory
> > impact caused by larger data structures."
> 
> 
> So you agree then that this overhead has existed since 10.6 and that
> nothing will change with the next version (likely the lsat to support
> 32bit APIs)
> 
> 
> Stating that 32bit apps will slow down is plain wrong and that is the
> FUD. They won't slow down compared to how they hyave been running since
> 10.6.

completely missing the point.

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

#116938

FromJolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
Date2018-06-02 21:40 +0000
Message-ID<fngh64F94auU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#116925
On 2018-06-02, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-06-02 11:46, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> "In OS X v10.6 and later, most built-in apps are 64-bit. The first time
>> you run a 32-bit application, all of the 32-bit framework slices must be
>> loaded into memory. This means that loading older, 32-bit-only
>> applications causes significant memory pressure, particularly on
>> computers with limited RAM. This often outweighs the additional memory
>> impact caused by larger data structures."
>
> So you agree then [] that
> nothing will change with the next version

No, I don't agree. Apple will likely be making additional changes, as
they do with every version.

> Stating that 32bit apps will slow down is plain wrong

You're the only one here making that statement. As usual, you are
unwilling or unable to understand the engineering challenges involved.

-- 
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]

#117049

FromLewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Date2018-06-05 09:45 +0000
Message-ID<slrnphcmst.1e03.g.kreme@Snow.local>
In reply to#116925
In message <jDBQC.303970$br4.168994@fx34.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Stating that 32bit apps will slow down is plain wrong and that is the
> FUD. They won't slow down compared to how they hyave been running since
> 10.6.

You are still wrong.

-- 
Don't congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. You
choices are half chance; so are everybody else's.

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

#116949

FromBarry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Date2018-06-02 22:35 -0400
Message-ID<barmar-A90D62.22350102062018@reader.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#116911
In article <fnfsfjF5023U5@mid.individual.net>,
 Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> particularly on
> computers with limited RAM.

Which is rarely a description of desktop computers. RAM is cheap, 
there's little excuse for not having enough.

I'm not saying that there's NO impact, just that it won't be that 
noticeable, unless you have a severely underconfigured machine.

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

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

#116951

FromYour Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Date2018-06-03 15:09 +1200
Message-ID<pevm5a$1ai9$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#116949
On 2018-06-03 02:35:05 +0000, Barry Margolin said:
> In article <fnfsfjF5023U5@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>> 
>> particularly on computers with limited RAM.
> 
> Which is rarely a description of desktop computers. RAM is cheap,
> there's little excuse for not having enough.
> 
> I'm not saying that there's NO impact, just that it won't be that
> noticeable, unless you have a severely underconfigured machine.

Yes and no.

RAM is cheap, unless you buy it from Apple, and since Macs these days 
are difficult-to-impossible to upgrade yourself (or in some cases at 
all after purchase), you are stuck buying it from Apple. The cheaper 
and off-the-shelf Macs do also tend to be a little underconfigured.

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

#117050

FromLewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
Date2018-06-05 09:47 +0000
Message-ID<slrnphcn0n.1e03.g.kreme@Snow.local>
In reply to#116949
In message <barmar-A90D62.22350102062018@reader.eternal-september.org> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <fnfsfjF5023U5@mid.individual.net>,
>  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>> particularly on
>> computers with limited RAM.

> Which is rarely a description of desktop computers. RAM is cheap, 
> there's little excuse for not having enough.

Many macs have 4GB of RAM, which is pretty low on a modern OS.

> I'm not saying that there's NO impact, just that it won't be that 
> noticeable, unless you have a severely underconfigured machine.

The impact will be on launch and then will be felt by the entire OS.

-- 
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web