64 bit apps. Worth it?

  1. 3 months ago

    Stephen D

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers

    Given the extra effort to build, support and manage installation of both 32 bit and 64 bit Windows apps, is it worth supporting 64 bit apps?

    Apple will soon be chastising developers with shame messages on every 32 bit Mac app launch. Is there any indication of Windows limiting 32 bit apps in the near-ish future?

    What are the clear 64 bit advantages?

  2. Christian S

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro, XDC Speakers Germany

    Current standpoint is that all Macs apps should be 64-bit while on Windows you can just ship 32-bit and everyone is happy.

  3. Emile S

    Mar 9 Europe (France, Strasbourg)

    It will be the next BIG thing on Windows too.

    Do you know there exists(ed) a 64 bits Windows XP version ?

  4. Julian S

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro UK

    @Stephen D Is there any indication of Windows limiting 32 bit apps in the near-ish future?

    I doubt windows will ever go the 64bit only route, there's just too much legacy code out there.

    @Stephen D What are the clear 64 bit advantages?

    None really worth writing home about unless you're working with large amounts of data/ram or making lots of large number calculations.

  5. Jürg O

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro

    @Stephen D Is there any indication of Windows limiting 32 bit apps in the near-ish future?

    No, on the contrary...
    In the Microsoft Store guides, Microsoft even encourages you to upload a 32Bit build (to reach a bigger audience).
    So unless your application really needs 64Bit (e.g. because of 32Bit memory limit), there is no advantage at all.

  6. Jason M

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers

    Absolutely worth it, all other major development systems have had 64bit for years, on Mac & Linux 64bit is THE standard. The only place 32bit is appropriate at this stage is on embedded micro-controllers. MS has a great 32bit compatibility layer, but that is just a stop gap to get to 64bit.

    We stopped using Xojo after more than a decade of use ( REAL/Xojo ) because of the lack of 64bit support and being able to ship Xojo based object libs. With some limited 64bit support now, we are taking another look.

    There aren't shipping 32bit desktop processors, all Intel, AMD, and a good portion of ARM are 64bit. Again 32bit is a great embedded controller, but if you aren't doing 64bit, you have already lost the race.

  7. Emile S

    Mar 9 Europe (France, Strasbourg)

    How many times (in years), do you plan to use the application ?

    You can bet on the future (if the number of years is high) and do it on 64Bits.

    Or continue in 32Bits if you think 64Bits will never have success.

    But, after thinking a second time, since Xojo will do the job for you, create the application for 64Bits (while checking if it compile in 32Bits) and provide 32Bits executables on demand.

    Common sense ? Yes, I think so.

  8. Jeff T

    Mar 9 Midlands of England, Europe

    64 bit Windows has been available for years.
    From thousands of shipped apps, the number of enquiries
    I have had about 'do you have a 64bit build'?

    One person.

    No choice on Macs because Apple are shaming developers for their own bugs.
    On Windows, 64bit isnt necessary unless you want to address gigs of memory or drivers that only exist in 64bit versions.
    Shipping both adds a couple of hours per release, and complicates the website/sales a bit.

  9. Philippe C

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro, XDC Speakers Ottawa, Canada

    On Mac it's not about shaming developers, it's about shipping a 64-bit-only OS meaning smaller binaries, smaller test footprint and mildly faster execution. Macs have shipped with 64-bit processors for a long time now (I think if you can run 10.7 and up you can run a 64-bit OS) so it makes sense to drop 32-bit support if you're targeting the latest OS already.

    I'm not aware of such a push on Windows, but I am intrigued by this thread. Are people still installing / using 32-bit Windows 10? On 64-bit hardware?

  10. @PhilippeCasgrain smaller binaries, smaller test footprint

    Where does this come from?

  11. Dave S

    Mar 9 San Diego, California USA
    Edited 3 months ago

    @PhilippeCasgrain a 64-bit-only OS meaning smaller binaries, smaller test footprin

    64bit compiles on my Mac are almost 2x the size of the 32bit compile

    current project
    32 Bit - app bundle is 16.6meg and internal binary is 6meg
    6 Bit - app bundle is 30.1meg and internal binary is 19.4meg

    so 1.8x larger bundle and 3.2x larger binary....... that does not equate to "smaller footprint"

  12. Christian S

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro, XDC Speakers Germany

    Do not compare Xojo's sizes.

    The main reason for us to go 64-bit on Mac is that Apple simply doesn't fix bugs for 32-bit any more (as much as they used to).
    So features break with OS updates.

  13. Dave S

    Mar 9 San Diego, California USA

    I am not saying the the "size" of a 64bit compiled app is a bad thing.... in my example... 30Meg is "nothing" these days....
    what I was doing is disputing the claim that the compliations were smaller

  14. Christian S

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro, XDC Speakers Germany

    Of course a 64-bit only app is smaller compared to a 32+64bit app
    I think Apple wants to save 1 GB of 32-bit libraries by removing 32-bit from macOS.

  15. Dave S

    Mar 9 San Diego, California USA

    @ChristianSchmitz Of course a 64-bit only app is smaller compared to a 32+64bit app

    Christian ... NO IT IS NOT SMALLER..... it is almost 2x the size

    @Dave S 32 Bit - app bundle is 16.6meg and internal binary is 6meg
    6 Bit - app bundle is 30.1meg and internal binary is 19.4meg

    so 1.8x larger bundle and 3.2x larger binary....... that does not equate to "smaller footprint"

  16. Tim P

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, XDC Speakers

    @ChristianSchmitz I think Apple wants to save 1 GB of 32-bit libraries by removing 32-bit from macOS.

    Well, I think that Apple wants to shame developers, and personally attack all of us here. Because that's the only reason they could possibly have, right?

  17. Julian S

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro UK

    Apple probably have a plan to move to different hardware in a few years so they are getting everyone migrated ahead of time.

  18. Christian S

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro, XDC Speakers Germany

    @Dave S Christian ... NO IT IS NOT SMALLER..... it is almost 2x the size

    just an example:

    MBS Plugin for FileMaker comes 32&64bit and has a size of 45.4 MB.

    The 32-bit only is 21.7 MB, the 64-bit only is 23.8 MB.

    And 23.8 MB is smaller than 45.4 MB. qed

  19. Jürg O

    Mar 9 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro
    Edited 3 months ago

    @Dave S it is almost 2x the size

    are both 32Bit and 64Bit builds using the LLVM compiler?
    or are you comparing Xojo's own 32Bit compiler with a build of Xojo using the 64Bit LLVM compiler?

  20. Dave S

    Mar 9 San Diego, California USA

    @Jürg O are both 32Bit and 64Bit builds using the LLVM compiler?
    or are you comparing Xojo's own 32Bit compiler to a build with Xojo using the 64Bit LLVM compiler?

    both builds were using Xojo.... from the same version of Xojo.... all I did was change the drop down

    but really... is it worth arguing about... it is what it is...

  21. Newer ›

or Sign Up to reply!