I understand 64bit/Beta/Canaria Chrome like Specific build of Portable app user pool is quite low and almost space wasting.
but still many apps deliver they're 64bit build for Public relise, and now major ones are moving 64bit build as main.
they're any method to Getting 64 bit Applications from here?
(ex: unite both build in Installer and then make selectable like)
i was using 64bit build of Chrome, Firefox, PotPlayer from here.
so i've using search bar on top.. but results are quite mixed on Outdated Threads.. :s
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
Please read this for the complete details on how 64-bit apps are handled in the context of portable software: https://portableapps.com/node/24371
The bottom line is that we do it where it makes sense and stick to 32-bit where it doesn't. Outside of CAD, audio and video encoding, compression, there's generally no performance increase in 64-bit apps compared to 32-bit. Where there is an advantage vs the size increase (example: 7-zip's ~9% performance gain for about 50% larger install size to do 32-bit and 64-bit) or where it's required (JkDefrag and Peerblock must run 32-bit on a 32-bit OS and 64-bit on a 64-bit OS), we build a dual mode app.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
other parts are not much benefits but cause of some media usage enlargements on global traffics,
modern HEVC/VP9/AOMV1 formats are much benefits on 64bit application and sw decoders as visible level now.
also not only contents side, distributed processing by usual Compilers are very common now.
even without any accelate in certain standards, usual arm core and low end x86 run a lots in raw performence cause of benefits on that.
Windows 10 also seems Fragnize they're process for ready on 'Windows 10 running in Non x86 arm core'
so even in limit almost protable apps support in here limit in to 32bit for Security, Tech Support and other ETC prurpose,
i think everythings are move 64bit on further future cause of both user pool side and system enviorments..
if it's okay to add certain page on main screen of websites, how about make a list to '64bit portable applications current support in' like.
some Windows applications are so much Superior Advantage as visible level really..
so that's i hope contain this advantage on portable state too.
ex: 64bit BandiZip with MultiThread processing, 64bit Chrome with Play multiful VP90 media in once, 64bit Firefox Quantom with 100+ tabs in Multiful Content Process settings, 64bit PotPlayer with Ultra Bitrate 8K/360 HEVC/VP9/AVC1 decode for test session.
In terms of real world performance, outside very specific niches we've both mentioned, the vast majority of users won't notice any difference between 32-bit and 64-bit. Where there is an advantage in most cases, even many edge cases, we already distribute the 64-bit apps to handle it. Firefox is already dual mode (32-bit and 64-bit together with the right one used on each PC) and has been for years now for folks that do 100 tabs. Chrome is separate 32-bit and 64-bit but will be switching to dual mode for all three channels. PotPlayer is a 32-bit portable package on our site and there's no real advantage to the 64-bit version in my testing. The vast majority of other apps have no advantage to being 64-bit.
Also, as pointed out, 32-bit will be a requirement for full coverage for the forseeable future. There are hundreds of millions of 32-bit machines out there. And the new ARM-based Windows machines will only run 32-bit x86 code, not 64-bit x86-64 code alongside the so-called Windows universal apps.
There's far less performance gain in x86 land of going from 32-bit to 64-bit for standard Windows apps than there was in going from 16-bit to 32-bit years back. Most of the advantages of 64-bit are at the OS level as indicated in the article linked above.
All that said, whenever you find an app in our directory that will benefit from a large performance gain (>10% say) or a decent feature addition (like opening up much larger files in Notepad2 variants) and won't have a massive increase in install size, please drop a note with the testing methodology and results and it'll be considered for an upgrade.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Please reconsider or retest with media players, namely video players. For those who play large video files, HEVC, mkv, and other CPU/RAM intensive files or HW acceleration, using x64 media players seems the wiser choice. See "Should I use a 32-bit or a 64-bit player?" at https://www.codecguide.com/faq_64bit.htm
I just tested 4K60 content encoded with both HEVC and VP9 on my desktop with a 4 year old i7-7700k CPU and a 4.5 year old GTX 1060 6GB GPU and both VLC 32-bit and 64-bit settled around an average 1% CPU usage and 25% GPU usage for HEVC and 25% CPU and 30% GPU with VP9. While running, they were basically identical.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Thanks for testing. I apologize for the late reply.
I also think it's better to have them separately and let the user choose which ones to download (with the option to download both).
https://www.worktime.com