Hi,
I was wondering if there was any chance to see the policy around 64-bit applications evolve in the near future. IMHO, I find the statement that "there is normally little or no performance benefit from running a native 64-bit app instead of its 32-bit build" somehow disputable and I would really love to see some important apps in 64 bits (in my case, I'd like to see FireFox, Thunderbird, LibreOffice and Inkscape in native 64-bit builds).
Is this matter considered settled or is it likely to be reconsidered?
Thanks!
R.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
We still support 32-bit systems, and the use-case of app portability between systems that may be 32-bit. So there is no change to the policy.
However more apps have moved to dual-mode since that page was written, which bundles both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions and uses the correct one based on the current computer. FireFox Portable has been dual-mode for a while now.
OK, thanks. That's unfortunate, since many applications such as LibreOffice and Inkscape get boosted in 64-bit builds and 32-bit computers are disappearing fast, but I appreciate the fast answer.
LibreOffice specifically is a difficult one because of the size. We aren't going to drop 32-bit support, and a dual-mode full multilingual installation could add up to over 2Gb in size.
There are still many, many people out there using 32-bit PCs in other countries... and the shops even sell them. The problem is, the app developers fail to realize that not everyone around the world can keep up with the fast and unending technological evolution... especially the non-rich folk.
I'm relieved to hear that! Though few or most app developers have a relentless urge to "kill off" 32-bit support and old OSes... just like in some Linux apps.
By the way, isn't a similar topic being discussed in this thread?
The Dark Giganotosaur, the ghastly dinosaur (currently in human form)
"Portable and stealth apps are all that matters to me!"
Windows 10 x64 (NEVER USED) | Knoppix 8.1+ x64 | Linux Mint 20.3 Xfce x64
Can you show a link to a 32 Bit only computer?
Or are you talking about 32 Bit OS installed?
The last 32 Bit only CPU for Desktop was released ~2002-2003.
I guess the last 32 bit laptop CPU was released something like a decade later.
I don't have info about 32 Bit OS's.
But I think Microsoft to the least doesn't sell those anymore for new computers.
By the way, I think the best way is to have advanced section in the PAc Menu to set for 64 Bit only and have 64 Bit version of each application (If available).
But I understand the limited BW of the developers so it can't be done unless one day the creation of 64 / 32 bit will be automated.
If I may ask, why are you using 32 Bit OS? Why do you use Windows XP? I'm interested to hear.
Long ago, I used to have a 32-bit desktop PC with Pentium 4 3.4 GHz CPU, 3.5 GB RAM (Three slots with 1 GB RAM each, and one with 512 MB), a NVidia graphics card (can't remember which model), and 1 TB HDD (and... you guessed it, it had Windows XP installed in it, but it wasn't even SP3, just SP2).
That PC lasted 10 years until its motherboard brokedown in 2016. Since then, I've been using a small 32-bit Atom laptop that a friend of mine gave me... and it's still working fine to this day. But it's sooooo limited... it has 20 GB HDD with Windows XP SP3 installed in it and 1 GB of RAM. However, I use Knoppix (already has WINE) a LOT more than Windows XP in this laptop.
I happen to have a 64-bit compatible HP laptop (I salvaged it last year) around, but it has some serious overheating problems, so now it's half-open and I have to put a huge fan underneath it so it'll cool down faster. However, it lacks a HDD but it's running Linux Mint fine through an external 1TB HDD... maybe I should upgrade it to a 64-bit version of it, but reinstalling everything is a pain in the backside.
About the links, sorry if I can't provide them, but I can tell you from the shops I visited (before the COVID-19 crisis) the PCs for sale (I mentioned earlier) are both 32-bit and 64-bit and already come with Windows 10 installed in them. However, some 32-bit PCs are cheap, others are expensive, and the 64-bit PCs cost a LOT more than 500 euros. But sadly, my life hasn't been good lately and I don't "swim in the pool of money" to afford high-end PCs... not to mention this "corona-morona" thing going on around the world which made me feel a bit depressed.
Why do I still use a 32-bit Windows XP? Well, everyone has the right and the freedom to choose and use whatever OS and bitness they want, don't they? One thing I frown upon is this constant prejudice against those who still use old OSes and PCs. If a PC and/or OS is still working fine, why discriminating those people by "killing off" their support and using "old and insecure" hogwash as an excuse? It's not the people's fault for not being rich and able to keep up the pace! What's next in the far future? Dropping 64-bit support and move on to 128-bit or 256-bit support?! Anyway, to answer your question... it's because I like it, it's pretty much stable, and it's been serving me well so far. Sure, I could use Windows 7, but that OS requires 10 GB and it would be too much caliber for this lil' laptop to handle. Still, like I said, I use Knoppix more than XP (to browse the Internet, watch videos, et cetera)... that is, unless WINE fails to run specific Windows apps.
Perhaps I'll buy a new 64-bit PC (either a desktop or a laptop) in the future. However! If it has Windows 10 (A.K.A. the spyware OS) in it, I will NOT hesitate to completely erradicate it and install Linux Mint in it.
The Dark Giganotosaur, the ghastly dinosaur (currently in human form)
"Portable and stealth apps are all that matters to me!"
Windows 10 x64 (NEVER USED) | Knoppix 8.1+ x64 | Linux Mint 20.3 Xfce x64
As an argument in favor of a bundled 32bit + 64bit version of Google Chrome, I just noticed that some features are not available with the 32bit version. I was testing Google Meet and I could not figure out why some features were not available to me, for example the ability to replace the background on a meet video call... only to discover that some of those advanced app features are only available when using 64bit Chrome.
Firefox and Thunderbird include both 32-bit and 64-bit already, so you're already using both of them as native 64-bit apps. Thunderbird switched last month. Firefox switched years ago. LibreOffice we have no plan to do dual mode due to size. It's already 1.1GB installed. And the only time you'd notice is if you were doing heavily scripted stuff on large datasets or massive document stores.
Most general-use apps don't see any noticeable difference in speed to an end user for 32-bit vs 64-bit. In general it's under 5%, which end users don't notice. And most apps spend most of their time waiting for end-user input. This isn't the same difference as 16-bit vs 32-bit when that move was made. Even 7-Zip, which would be one of the apps to see the most gain, only sees a 10% performance gain at the most depending on dataset (usually around 7%).
Fun fact: We got requests for Firefox to be 64-bit years after switching to dual mode. One user claimed it would be so much faster if we switched when, in fact, they'd already been using Firefox Portable as a 64-bit app for 18 months at the time.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Care to Share the Thread?
Also other links to your data?
Fun Fact: 64 Bit also has advantages in the security department.
There have been a few over the years, but Drupal's search isn't geared towards comments, so I'm not gonna search through over 100 results. I've gotten a couple emails about it, too. But they get an auto-response that we don't do support over email.
As for data, a quick test of 7-Zip 19.00 32-bit vs 64-bit compressing LibreOffice Portable 7.0 Multilingual Standard to a 7z yielded 57.62s vs 64.68s, a time reduction of 10.9%. That's running from a SATA SSD on an i7-4790 with 24GB of RAM. When run from a hybrid hard drive (a hard drive with an SSD cache) with the files cached was 58.52 vs 60.35m a time reduction of 3%.
Most of the security features you're thinking of for 64-bit processors (NX bit, etc) only apply to a 64-bit OS, not to the apps.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Anyhow, I don't have issues with 32 Bit being the default.
I don't like the 32 + 64 packages. I prefer having separated 32 and 64 releases.
Then each user, in settings, can check which he wants (Default being 32 so only advanced users will use that).
I find having 2 separated applications being a great advantage:
1. Download size and installation speed.
2. Being able to run 2 instances in parallel (This is a major advantage with Google Chrome).
On the other hand I know it creates overhead. But once the generation of application will be better automated, it will disappear (Also it will be easier for the dev team to offer more 64 bit versions).
I live in a country where let say more modern technology is more easy available to many people.
I personally have abt 8 computers I think.
So far only one works with 64bit.
The other are all 32bit.
Even if I take some of the apps with 64bit on the one computer which can do it, I do not see any difference. So do not understand why someone can bother so much. I can take 32bit or 64bit software, no difference.
So what is all this about?
Taken world regions where the latest technology is not as easy av, 32bit will stay for long time.
Not all people in the world can go and buy the latest IT equipment as it is marketed. Many people have to work with computers over 10 year old or with no computer at all.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
As I raised the original question, note that I never suggested dropping 32-bit support; I doubt it bothers anyone. I only wish 64-bit version of some key applications was available. When dealing with large (doesn't need to be huge) files, performance can be really higher in 64-bit builds.
can not understand how this should apply to Firefox, Thunderbird, LibreOffice
large files there? How this can be?
What performance? Will a file open 6ms earlier?
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
Try to open a file with several millions of cells, including fomulas in LibreOffice Calc, the difference will be huge with a 64-bit build that can access all memory over 4GB? Try to do the same in Google Spreadsheet, you'll need FireFox 64-bits (which I learned is actually available)..
as the chance to have a sheet with several million cells and formulas is 1:several million
and it will be very difficult just to create such file really. What for? To see that it will open few seconds faster?
and so probably someone having such problems with so large files will hardly have portable apps for the work on that
And can not imagine someone will work with such file on Google Docs
And as none of my computers have more then 4GB ram, it is hard for me to test anyway.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
As a data analyst, I deal with these often, and it's getting increasingly common (and not a chance of 1:several milions). The difference in these cases is measured in many minutes. But then I was just asking for a piece of information and explaining why I'm asking, not arguing about whether it should be done or not.
I think the parent was saying that 1 in a million spreadsheets are that large. 99% of users will never use them. .01% of users will use them every single day. You're that niche.
As a temporary workaround, you can install LibreOffice local and copy the 64-bit files into LibreOffice Portable if you have specific needs on that front in the meantime.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I understand your reasons. Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that you guys should support it. I'm just saying that there would be good reasons to do it, but there may be even better ones not to.
The actual data from PassMark and Steam shows the usage of 32 Bit Windows system is well below 1%:
https://i.imgur.com/CALkIaG.png
https://i.imgur.com/MmA0tSL.png
https://i.imgur.com/OpTIM9n.png
The data from Steam and PassMark is biased towards high end systems.
But given MS doesn't ship Windows 32 bit anymore, let's say the are biased in an order of magnitude. Still it means we have less than 10% of computers with 32 Bit.
But I think the point here is different.
We all agree the default should be 32 Bit so non advanced users will have good out of the box experience.
There are 2 different requests here:
1. Please add more 64 Bit versions of the current applications.
2. Please offer the 64 Bit versions in a separate form (Not the 32 + 64 Bit form) (My request).
I guess both requests won't happen as currently many of the release operations are manual.
Hence it means more work for the developers.
Hopefully, once the release procedure is automated we might see more 64 Bit versions (Hopefully with option for separate installer).
As I said in another thread, you can delete the 32 bits app folder, and rename the 64 bits apps folder.
E.g., for Firefox, delete "App\Firefox" folder, rename "App\Firefox64" to "App\Firefox", and you have a slimline 64 bits only version. Same with others (I did it with Thunderbird too).
Seeing that portable apps are part of my backup routine, not having to check/backup the hundreds of files of the 32 bits versions, which I have never used in a decade, not only saves space but saves a non-negligible amount of time every time I do a backup.
I suggest separate downloads for the combined and the 64bit versions. (Or even just 32bit and 64bit versions.)
Pros:
faster downloads
lower space requirements
not having to manually remove the unneeded 32/64bit files (for people who do that)
in case of non-combined versions, lower complexity (no need to check the OS version)
Cons:
a small amount of people (who don't know what 64bit means) might get confused by the choice
some extra work for the PA team to make two downloads instead of one
I think the pros outweigh the cons, but maybe I'm biased. I haven't used a 32bit OS in a very long time and I'm convinced that even among the worldwide PortableApps demographics it's below 5% at this point. If that's true, that means 95% of people are wasting bandwidth and storage space for no reason. When it's millions of downloads it can become significant. The PA/Sourceforge servers are sometimes slow, so reducing the load would be beneficial.
I also think it is better to have them separate and let the user chose which ones to download (With the option to download both).
I have to say that I agree with the folks wanting separate downloads for 32-bit and 64-bit apps. For the people that don't understand the difference then all that needs done is to add a message at the download page advising of the difference and the means to check their system for its bit-ness. Perhaps PortableApps could provide a small app that does nothing more than check the bit-ness of a system and inform the user what the bit-ness is.
However, my main reason for wanting separate downloads, and a reason that no one has flagged up here, is to do with wear on an SSD. As things stand just now I can download an app that will install both 32- and 64-bit versions. I can delete the one I don't want, fair enough. However, the damage is already done as I've whacked my SSD with both bit-ness apps and hence it wears all the faster. The same scenario also applies to flash drives.
Time for change I think. Protestations that some users don't know the difference between bit-ness are pretty well empty and just show a lazy lack of resolve in solving the issue and informing users of what the difference actually means.
Just my tuppence-worth.
Use Portable Apps on both Flash Drive and HDD/SSD.
There are only a handful of apps where it's worth adding in the 64-bit version (any gain in performance or abilities vs increase in effort, size, and bandwidth), so the impact on your SSD is negligible over its lifespan. Firefox's 32-bit files total 194MB, so you're getting that on average once a month. 2.3GB in a year. Or around a decrease in lifespan of 0.001% per year for a typical 1TB SSD.
The vast majority of apps see no gain in anything by moving to 64-bit : no noticeable speed increase, no difference in features. The vast majority of the apps we package are only available as 32-bit, as is typical for most Windows software.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I believe 64bit apps are also inherently more secure, due to the way they address memory.
Oh and another pro for separate downloads that I didn't see yet: because that's how it's usually done and 32+64bit combo downloads are the exception. At least that's my experience, anyway.
In fact, I didn't even realize PA apps were 32+64bit until I once ran into a problem because of that (a rather specific issue, no need to mention it here).
I think it's time for 64 bit applications, it's safe and there are a lot of advantages. So soon everyone will do so, I think!
Same thing for me. I think it's time to move on to a standard without flipping between the "old" and the "other" one.
Linux packages have already moved to x64 without making wars between the two architectures and they are strong opinionated on the fact that the os works on older machines (depends by the distribution...).
So I think we have surpassed the ages when the Mac used "Universal" application (It was only a folder with two programs with the different architecture and was taking double the space!)
So for me x64...
Any chance to see Potplayer potable x64? Sometimes it will be very memory hungry...
64-bit builds use demonstrably more memory than 32-bit builds (object code increase of about 30%). If you're worried about memory usage, Potplayer x64 will make it noticeably worse.
The points that have been brought up have been thoroughly addressed. First, and most critically, it doesn't matter that you have a 64-bit machine. A lot of people don't. We serve users all over the world in 58 languages, many of whom have access to much lesser technology than you or I do.
Second, a majority of the apps in our directory don't even have a 64-bit build available. Just like the majority of Windows software in general. Again, the majority of software we package and the majority of Windows software in general is only available as a 32-bit package because for most software, there is no advantage to moving to 64-bit.
Third, where there is an advantage that balances out against the increase in size and time to package, we do it. Where there isn't, we don't. Example, Notepad++ was just moved to dual mode 32-bit and 64-bit so it can open super large text files and it only added a 8MB to the install size. We do this for dual mode 32-bit and 64-bit apps. And the latest platform release allows us to package 64-bit only software so users don't miss out on it while we continue to service 32-bit users.
Lastly, if you have a specific app with a specific advantage you need for the 64-bit build, please post a note about it directly in the forums. For example, the Notepad++ request from this month that made sense. Please refrain from repeating the same arguments in this thread that have already been addressed.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!