64 bit apps. Worth it?

  1. ‹ Older
  2. 4 months ago

    Alberto D

    Mar 11 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro

    I think if the target is macOS, is better to only work with 64bit.
    If target windows, is safe to build 32bit app unless your app needs 64bit (or your client needs 64bit).
    Windows 10 still available as 32bit.

  3. Eric W

    Mar 11 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro
    Edited 4 months ago

    IMHO, it seems like Apple wants to get OSX to where it will no longer support 32-bit apps at all (eventually) whereas Microsoft is content to support the 32-bit compatibility layer long term.

    And why is that? Because there are quad-zillions of lines of VB code and 32-bit line of business apps out there which will break the upgrade/replacement cycle unless they are allowed to live on in a 32-bit world. On the other ahdn, high-end apps like video editing or statistical packages and big servers need 64-bit address spaces. Unless yours is like those I wouldn't bother. Compiling to 64 bit will only limit the addressable market even if it were only 10% so one must do 32-bit compile in any case.

  4. Michel B

    Mar 11 Pre-Release Testers RubberViews.com

    Apple is probably going to break 32 bit compatibility very soon, just like Linux did not long ago, but knowing Microsoft, the excellent support of 32 bit applications under Windows 64 bit will probably continue for a good deal of time longer.

  5. Rick A

    Mar 11 (Brazil. GMT-3:00)
    Edited 4 months ago

    @Michel B Rick, as often, you take your own opinion as the only one valid. Other developers may have different perspectives.

    As often, I'm not opining, just showing facts, accepting them is an option.
    I'm not asking anyone to follow nothing, just presenting data, real data. Do whatever you want. ;)

  6. Hi,
    still did not switch to 64 bits for build due to currency type.

    Another issue for 64-bit builds is the Currency data type. According to long time Xojo developer Kem Tekinay using Currency is not recommended in 64-bit builds due to comparison issues.

    From this article https://www.bkeeneybriefs.com/2017/12/xojo-2017-r3/ But I don't know if it's applicable or not

  7. Rick A

    Mar 12 (Brazil. GMT-3:00)

    While they don't fix, you may try this: https://forum.xojo.com/45817-money-class-currency-alternative

  8. Until MS stops 32-bit apps from running I would still build a 32-bit for Windows as, unless your app requires more RAM than a 32-bit app can use, there is no reason to build a 64-bit app. There will be a time just like when MS ditched the 16-bit compatibility layer. Windows user shouldn't complain about the bit-ness of an app as the 64-bit versions of Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10 all support running 32-bit code.

    On macOS there is no choice, you need to build a 64-bit if you want to submit it to the App Store as Apple will stop accepting 32-bit apps (if it hasn't already). Maybe not the macOS 10.14 but 10.15 will almost certainly completely drop 32-bit support just as iOS 11 did.

    My main OS is Mac and out of curiosity I checked how many 32-bit apps I have installed and even Adobe is still releasing 32-bit apps such as their installers. Even Apple's own DVD Player (on 10.13.3 btw) is 32-bits. Even Roxio's Toast 16 Pro is still 32-bit.

  9. Rick A

    Mar 12 (Brazil. GMT-3:00)

    @Charles F even Adobe is still releasing 32-bit apps such as their installers.

    FWIW, Adobe is also, very slowly, ditching 32bit. As you can see in some products like Lightroom: https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1834104

  10. Michel B

    Mar 12 Pre-Release Testers RubberViews.com
    Edited 4 months ago

    It is all a matter of market opportunity. There is no one size fit all. Sure, eventually 32 bit will go the way of Windows 98, but it may still be premature for some markets.

  11. Craig G

    Mar 12 Australia

    @Michel B Craig, how do you you deal with the Start menu shortcuts ?

    Everything else is the same for both. Inno Setup will create the same Start menu for either system.

  12. Craig G

    Mar 12 Australia
    Edited 4 months ago

    @Jeff T Nice. But I assume this doubles the size of the installer?

    Yes from 7mb to 16mb. Not a worry.
    Having a universal installer for Windows takes away a lot of problems, many users don't know what system they have and which installer to download. Waiting a few seconds for a common installer to download hasn't caused any complaints.
    If you want to reduce the installer file size further install the same Resources folder on both systems, then you only need to package it once.

  13. Emile S

    Mar 12 Europe (France, Strasbourg)

    Isn’t the horse already dead ? Isn’t it time to stop beating it ?

  14. Wayne G

    Mar 12 Pre-Release Testers, Xojo Pro New Zealand axisdirect.nz

    For services such as a Web app running standalone I would expect a 64bit build to be a must and maybe for end user products that involve a heap of graphics manipulation on large images. For normal applications follow MS's lead (e.g. Office) and continue to use 32bit builds. An exception to this might be when you need your app to have elevated privileges which is now supported with 64 bit builds.

  15. Jeff T

    Mar 12 Midlands of England, Europe

    Yes from 7mb to 16mb. Not a worry.

    Hahahahaha

    The newly introduced Text DLL is 20Mb on its own.
    What are you shipping.. "Hello w' ? :)

    (ps.. I dont actually need to know.
    My own apps would end up at leat 10 times that.
    I do worry but apparently I shouldnt)

  16. Craig G

    Mar 13 Australia

    @Wayne G I would expect a 64bit build to be a must and maybe for end user products that involve a heap of graphics manipulation on large images.

    @Emile S Isn’t the horse already dead ? Isn’t it time to stop beating it ?

    Sorry Emile I just can't thank Xojo enough for the 64bit version.
    As soon as I distributed my app as 64bit my programs Facebook page lit up with nothing but praise. A huge improvement in speed.
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/y6bnrpryind6dn1/x64.png?dl=0

  17. Michel B

    Mar 13 Pre-Release Testers RubberViews.com
    Edited 4 months ago

    @Craig G A huge improvement in speed.

    I take it you have used aggressive optimization ?

  18. Craig G

    Mar 13 Australia

    @Michel B I take it you have used aggressive optimization ?

    Is there a button for that? It's the same code as the 32bit.

    I didn't notice any improvement on my high end computer but there's a lot of users out there with budget computers with just enough processing power to run Windows and not much else.
    Running the extra layer of 32bit architecture really chews up resources.

  19. Rick A

    Mar 13 (Brazil. GMT-3:00)

    @Craig G As soon as I distributed my app as 64bit my programs Facebook page lit up with nothing but praise. A huge improvement in speed.

    Uses all the available memory without memory disk swaps, removes the WoW64 Win32 emulator layer and runs natively.

  20. Michel B

    Mar 13 Pre-Release Testers RubberViews.com

    @Craig G @Michel B I take it you have used aggressive optimization ?

    Is there a button for that? It's the same code as the 32bit.

    In Shared build settings, Build/Optimization level. You got the choice between Default, Moderate, and Aggressive. Compilation in Aggressive is slow, but the executable is supposed to be a lot faster.

  21. Craig G

    Mar 13 Australia

    @Michel B In Shared build settings, Build/Optimization level. You got the choice between Default, Moderate, and Aggressive. Compilation in Aggressive is slow, but the executable is supposed to be a lot faster.

    Thanks Michael, I didn't know that existed. Will try. Every little bit helps.

or Sign Up to reply!