Wow. Who dedicated August as "Be Patronizing To Hime Month" and why did no one tell me?
I don't know what the minimum system requirements on Windows for Quackle are, but it wouldn't shock me if it's compiled as low-level as possible - Pentium? Pentium II? As such, I imagine it features zero processor optimizations. Consider that AMD64 spec processors almost universally include command sets up to SSE3, and with the various number crunching going on, I can imagine there is some performance increase, not to mention the increased register sizes may be useful. Most people for some reason are in a rush to claim that there's no benefit to switching to 64-bit programs... I honestly think they're just avoiding doing the work. I'd love to see a simple benchmark done just by recompiling without any work on the source code. To me, it doesn't seem like a lot. But apparently in the free software world, you're not allowed to ask for things. -- It only took 15 years for me to get a sig... to shamelessly promote my podcast. http://www.valuecube.com Aug 14, 2010 11:17:48 PM, [email protected] wrote: =========================================== It's impossible to make a generalization about the performance characteristics of 32-bit vs. 64-bit programs. It is not true, for exampe, that 64-bit programs can be expected to be twice as fast because there are twice as many bits. I could explain why this is, but the explanation is pretty technical. But just trust me, it doesn't work that way. In fact, depending upon the nature of how a given program works, it's actually possible for a 64-bit version to be *slower* than a 32-bit version, all other things being equal. There is only one true generalization one can make about 64-bit programs, and that is that they are capable of accessing far more memory than 32-bit programs. This can be very important for certain high-performance computing applications that deal with large amounts of data, but that does not describe Quackle. So, there may or may not be a performance increase associated with compiling Quackle under 64-bit Windows. If there is, I suspect it's comparatively small, but that's a guess. Assuming that Win64 Qt builds without much difficulty, it probably would be easy for me to test, but I just don't have the time right now. I'm absolutely saturated. As for the Linux issues, perhaps the easier route would be to install 32-bit compatibility libraries. Ubuntu doesn't include them by default, but you can install them, which will enable all manner of 32-bit Linux binaries to work without a problem. I'm sorry...I don't know off the top of my head exactly what the name of the 32-bit ccompatibility package is, but I know for certain that it exists. Sincerely, John Fultz [email protected] > Is there a 64-bit Windows version? Is there a performance increase > associated with moving to 64-bit? > > > > -- Sent from my Palm Pre > On Aug 14, 2010 8:14 PM, caughran40 <[email protected]> wrote: > > The debian package at http://quackle.poslfit.com/ won't install under > Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit. "Wrong version," it says. Is this just a question of > recompiling? > > > > The windows package does install under Win7 64-bit, which runs in a > virtual machine under Ubuntu, so I'm not totally deprived. > > > > Jim Caughran > > caughranjim at gmail com
