-> Windows dropped 64-bit in 2005

How is syswow64 any different from 32bit multilib?
>b-but they are not PURE 32bit libraries
So what? They serve the same purpose.

God bless the 128-bit era

Why is wow64 any better? The processors can run 32bit code so why not ship 32 bit libraries if you are going to ship extra stuff for 32bit apps anyway?

I've asked this question before on this board, but I still genuinely wonder if/when we will transition to 128-bit. It sounds absurd (right now) to claim we would need such massive sizes, but I just don't know.

Are you crazy? Why would we reduce our processing power even further? 64bit was bad enough? 32bits is fine, but I can't wait for 16bit.

Holy shit! It's Luke "computers were faster when they were slower" Smith!!!!

less bits, means less overhead.

They literally were

Attached: Screenshot_20190622-215239.jpg (1080x2340, 1.12M)

>post number is 8088
well fuck I can't even pretend to deny it now. Why is this the case?

Weird, I read a thesis by a local RedHat dev that came to the same conclusions.

>speed, and not throughput is the end-all-be-all
Luke doesn't know anything about computers by the way. Half his opinions are memes he read online.

Seasons 6 (towards the end), 7, and 8 sucked major cock. Its a shame, too bad the writing was so fucked.

>I have proof
>This just says that "I am right"

Attached: giphy[1].gif (300x168, 3.75M)

But it literally does, 32 bit software ships with it's own 32 bits libraries and requires 32 bit libraries, 64 bit Windows ships with library wrappers and libraries to make them run like their 32 bit counterparts
See WoW64

For interactive workloads, yeah, latency will matter way more than throughput if throughput isn't a massive bottleneck
Now notice what you're doing with your computer, yes, you're interacting with it
Con Kolivas holds a pretty similar view to what that yt e-celeb does, the e-celeb probably read about it on his blog or docs, that's why he did things like the ck-patchset, specially BFS and now MuQSS

WoW64 is a kludgy hack. You're mapping a 32-bit libs and applications into a 64-bit memory address space. There is definitely going to be overhead every time the CPU switches from 64-bit to 32-bit and back again.

> Windows dropped 64-bit in 2005
Incorrect. I am still running old 32 bit programs in current windows.

Yes, you're using WOW64.
Ubuntu is dropping 32-bit packages and libraries just and Windows did and yet Windows can still ruin 32-bit apps but GNU cannot.
What's GNU's problem?

The whole point of having higher bit registers is the move more bigger WORDs at a time. If you're not filling your register, then it's potential is just wasted and you're better off designing a chip that uses that space for something else.

the only disadvantage about 64 bit is that context switch is slower than 32 bit. otherwise there's no reason to use 32 bit at all.

Marginally slower, and yet you have way more throughput per-cycle.

>throughput
bandwidth I mean.

Imagine being so up your own ass that compatibility with a huge library of classic software no longer bothers you

There are other ways to be compatible with old software, shipping a second copy of your operating system isn't the way to do it.
See WOW64.

Why would we spend the development effort when even cheap hard drives now have TBs of storage?

They do support 32 bit, otherwise the only reason to use Windows, gayming, would be severely limited.

They support it without shipping 32-bit libraries.
Ubuntu is not explicitly dropping 32-bit support, they're dropping 32-bit libraries and packages.

Linux is going 64-bit only.

haven't thought about that. this means it uses more cache memory too, right?

It's ridiculous that memory address space is 2^32 on a processor capable of 2^64 address space. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would you do that?

>2014 50ms
>1988 150ms

>computers are getting slower

I would think so, since WORDs are bigger then you'd need a bigger cache or settle for storing fewer.

>custom haswell-e

thats a fucking enthusiast platform and it isn't specified what OS is being used

So you're suggesting that 32-bit programs just ship the libraries they need? That's actually not a bad idea

My sysWOW64 folder is filled with 32bit libs

Attached: wot32bit.png (979x512, 72K)

Every single DLL file on Windows is PE32. Even your own image shows acwow64 as PE32.
If you open them in a dedicated DLL disassembler then you can see the "+" suffix which denotes it as being 64-bit.

So why is shipping a pile of 64bit libs better that shipping a pile of 32bit libs? Amd64 cpus can run both natively.

It's dropping multilib, 64bit only packages and libraries. Means 32 bit application won't run

Because you can translate just a few address spaces in an otherwise identical library.
The other solution is to maintain two copies of the library and ship them with operating system.
You'd essentially ship the OS twice.

>It's dropping multilib, 64bit only packages and libraries.
Good

>Means 32 bit application won't run
Too bad. They should have invested more in MultiArch, or used Flatpak in Steam.

What's the problem with that?
a) builds can be automated
b) they could provide a full 32bit os if they compile everything to i386 or they could just compile the mist common libraries
c) package manager will only install the libraries that are needed

Multiarch is literally what they used and are removing now. Also flatpak base runtimes literally install a full distro worth of libraries on your system.

Steam doesn't use the package manager.
You could ask Steam to ship the libraries. They could use flatpak to do it like the other user said if they wanted to.

Regardless of whether they translate 32-bit libraries or use a user-space PKGmanager to handle libraries, multilib is not the way to go.
As an Arch user, I hope they do the same.

but when I look at other files they're called PE32+ and x86-64 is mentioned

Attached: wot64bit.png (979x512, 70K)

>system32 directory
Yes, retard. The 64-bit DLLs used by WOW64 don't have the 64-bit header.
That doesn't mean that they're not 64-bit, it means that that a 32-bit executable. isn't going to understand why there's a "+" at the end of the header it's interacting with.

If you don't believe me, consider the fact that 3D Pinball was removed from XP x64 because it was 32-bit and they wanted the whole thing to be true x64 and were too lazy to port it. There aren't 32 bit libs in WOW64.

Based. Why is ubuntu even dropping 32bit packages? Don't they pull all that shit from debian anyway?

then how do you explain this....

>At startup, Wow64.dll loads the x86 version of Ntdll.dll (or the CHPE version, if enabled) and runs its initialization code, which loads all necessary 32-bit DLLs. Almost all 32-bit DLLs are unmodified copies of 32-bit Windows binaries,
docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/WinProg64/wow64-implementation-details

Wow, 32 bit programs executes in 32 bit. Who would have thought?

Based. Fuck games and wine

You just said that 64bit windows is a pure 64bit environment but that doc states otherwise. So how is wow64 any better than debian with multiarch?

hhhhmmmmm wot about dis one

>The %windir%\System32 directory is reserved for 64-bit applications on 64-bit Windows. Most DLL file names were not changed when 64-bit versions of the DLLs were created, so 32-bit versions of the DLLs are stored in a different directory. WOW64 hides this difference by using a file system redirector.

Let's just increase our install size fir every app

>multiarch
I'm not the guy you responded to but.
Your own docs satate that they WOW64's 32-bit libs recreate a 32-bit environment. App libs are translated in real-time with WOW64.
Ubuntu's MultiLIB ships an identical copy of the library compiled for 32-bit.

They are very different, but arguing it with an autistic-to-change, tech-illiterate who isn't even interested in changing his mind is fruitless.
It's a good change, and when you're baby games are working again, you'll learn to like it.

>install size fir every app
By removing libs?
Or do you just not know how flatpak works? Do you not know how systemd works too?

>-> Windows dropped 64-bit in 2005
All installers are still 32bit.

t. someone who had to get Windows software running via Wine on a 64bit-only type of Thin Client

>Remember that we could have been using Flatpak-like system, through GNUSTEP which offers .app capability to GNU and BSD, since the 90s. Unfortunately retarded luddites wanted to keep using traditional package managers that just blindly places files into /usr/lib/.
I don't trust anything GNU. The deeper I dive into the wasteland that is Linux userspace, the more I understand that the degree of effort invested into creating any components is so low that most of the effort is spend on working around low-effort implementations of shit that should be well-structured and easy to do.
And GNU's packages are a huge portion of that issue.

Wanna know where all the 64bit libs are?
System32.
Yes, really.

>All installers are still 32bit.
Nobody said Windows can't do run 32 apps, that doesn't mean it ships 32 bit libs.

Windows 10 still has 32bit versions for legacy uses.

Ubuntu neckbeards just being fat and lazy.

>32bit editions
We're talking about 64 bit OSs only actually, retard.

Why is emulating a 32 bit environment better than just having real 32 bit libraries? The cpu can execute 32 bit stuff and windows has fully 32 bit versions of their os anyway.
I feel like syswow64 is the way it is only because windows doesn't have a proper package manager that lets people install only the libraries that they need when they need them.

>Loonix devs don't know how to thunk 32-bit

the absolute state

Feel free to educate me on flatpaks. Every flatpak that I've installed required the freedesktop base runtime, which is literally a distro inside your distro.

Flatpak absolutely creates redundancy if you pair it with a distro that also ships userspace apps with a package manager.

Feodra Silverblue uses it exclusively for userspace apps. it only installs the libraries it needs and shares them.

Why is it ok for flatpak to have 64bit and 32bit libraries but not ok for the real distro to have them?

Nothing.
Steam can still ship 32-bit libs on ubuntu if they want to. As it is now, it just installs them all.

jesus christ, i'm not even going to bother refuting these points
get a clue before posting here
the only thing you wrote which is accurate is "Arch Linux doesn't ship [32bit libraries] by default", and even then that is a meaningless thing to say, since that doesn't affect 32bit application support, and ubuntu didn't ship with any by default before, either

...

>Windows dropped 64-bit in 2005
Are they only supporting 128-bit processors now? What the fuck, based

None of these stopped supporting 32bits applications. Nice thread.

I need 32-bit support in order to use some old hardware as a basic media or office device. Otherwise, those old PCs have no use and it's sad.

macos is dropping 32bit application support in the next release (not in 2018 as op said)

Literally does not happen. If this ever has happened, it would have been debian's packaging problem.

Why are you trying to spread fud so hard?

That's not even the issue, the issue is that they are purposely killing tons of programs just because "32bit is old lol"

It’s the truth.

>> The real issue is the costs of maintainership.
>Indeed, and this is a cost largely paid by Canonical (both in terms of infrastructure, and in terms of engineering work to keep the base system working). It's not very compelling to say that Canonical should continue bearing these costs out of pocket

baka

>get paid for your distribution
>quality is not any better than any other distribution

Redhat/CentOS is the only good distribution. It feels somewhat professional.

It's next to pointless. There's next to no harm in keeping 32 bit libs.The motivations mentioned are incredibly weak.
Any software distributor (or user) now would have to deal with a compatibility issue that's now artificially inserted to the system.
Happy to hear valve decided to drop 19.10. Hope others follow suit.
This better be a joke.

Wow fuck this thread. Scumbags in here who talk using something that sounds like their ass.

>Windows dropped 64-bit in 2005

Sometimes I forget how retarded the people on Jow Forums are. Truly everybody moved to Windows XP 64-bit the greatest operating system of all time.

Depends on workload. Sure as fuck matters for audio production. This is a huge reason why the new Mac Pro is Xeon based.

Windows dropped 32-bit in 2005, huh?

MS-DOS dropped 32-bit from day one. Suck it.

So basically when they ran out of book sources.