why are x86 used when x64 versions exist in the official portable apps, so far ive found qbittorrent is x86 although a x64 version does exist, also irfanview, sumatra, filezilla and teamviewer are also 32-bit. I personally will have to install these apps or make my own portables before I use the x86 versions when there are better alternatives.
Lately many of the major software developers are dropping support for defunct 32 bit applications, just curious why these are even used here, maybe there should be a choice between both?
https://www.google.com/search?ei=&q=dropping+32+bit+support
You are here
Why are x86 apps used in official portableapps?
July 26, 2019 - 8:27am
#1
Why are x86 apps used in official portableapps?
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
See this comment from John T. Haller https://portableapps.com/comment/229199#comment-229199 and see this https://portableapps.com/node/24371
Portabilizing application... 14 at the moment
hmm those posts are from 2010 and 2016, surely by now there could at least be a choice for the users between both versions. oh well I'll see what I can do to continue to make my own x64 packages, I may even look into creating a launcher that is not 32-bit.
The point is for everyone to use portable app and only a few app is better with 64 bits like 7-zip but the other don't absolutly need 64 bits if it work perfectly on a 32 bits software. The only way to do everything in 64 bits is to Microsoft to abandon 32 bits support.
Portabilizing application... 14 at the moment
Nothing's changed except the percentages. The vast majority of apps perform no better at 64-bit than 32-bit. The vast majority of users don't understand the difference and don't know what their OS is and would be confused by the choice. You can't make the choice for them as a lot of users move between PCs and them using a a 64-bit machine on install doesn't mean they won't be using 32-bit tomorrow. Making both available for every app double the work on me for no real reward other than people who mistakenly believe 64-bit is always faster.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I've found that I can just 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 I have a slimline 64 bits only version that works fine.
Same with Thunderbird.
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 am doing the same with all the 64 parts as they are of no use and take space, 32 bit parts remaining can be used everywhere, so why to bother with 64 bit.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
But then you can't use the PA updater, right?
actually i was also curious about it, glad you asked it here.
Please re-read the above. Nothing's changed except the percentages. For the handful of apps where there's any noticeable difference in performance, we package both. For example, 7-Zip 64-bit is about 9% faster than 7-Zip 32-bit on very large compression sets. And that's the biggest difference in testing so far. So, we package both. For apps with a feature only on 64-bit like working with very large text files in Notepad++, we package both. For apps where the current version is 64-bit only but the previous is 32-bit, we package both so all users can use it. For apps that are 64-bit only, we package just that and indicate it to the user. Your question is likely answered in full above or in one of the two links shared here: https://portableapps.com/comment/240878#comment-240878
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!