Hi Paul, On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Paul Hohensee wrote:
> Imo, it's very unlikely that 64-bit build footprint will ever be an > issue, and 32-bit build footprint would be an issue on memory-limited > devices, of which there are none that run OSX. The real utility of > 32-bit is compatibility. Compatibility is a big issue (see e.g. Apple's support for Quicktime4Java), but footprint is definitely also an issue. For example, we are running a few data-intensive tasks on a machine with 128G RAM and manage to run out of memory (we are managing terabytes of data, one microscope we use can produce >1TB data in less than 2 hours). Now, a couple of these tasks have been streamlined to be able to page to disk so they run on normal computers (our standard desktops do not have 128G RAM, but rather 2-4), but the fewer bytes we require to be in RAM per dataset, the fewer page accesses we have, the faster the application runs. > I'd just go with universal binaries and not bother with 32/64 options. That would be the preferable solution for us, too. Thank you, Johannes
