On May 10, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Nick Zitzmann wrote: > On May 10, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Ben wrote: >> - Either way, should I be concerned? > > Two years ago I would have said yes, because when we published our first > 64-bit program around that time, we had several users write in and tell us > they thought the app was using too much memory. 64-bit apps were really rare > back then, and people weren't used to seeing them, so we obliged and went > back to 32-bit. But now, 64-bit apps are far more common than they were back > then, and a lot of the bugs in Leopard's 64-bit frameworks were fixed in Snow > Leopard, so now I wouldn't hold back. There is more to the transition than > having a higher VM ceiling, e.g. 64-bit apps will run faster than 32-bit apps > on Intel CPUs due to improvements in the ABI.
Another advantage for 64-bit: if your app is the only 32-bit app on an otherwise all-64-bit system, you will be solely responsible for loading the entire 32-bit library stack, and your launch time and RSIZE will suffer accordingly. (Admittedly, this is not currently a big issue since iTunes is 32-bit.) On Leopard this effect was a disadvantage for 64-bit, since it was likely that your app was the only 64-bit app. You don't want to be the odd-app-out because you won't share as much memory with everybody else. -- Greg Parker gpar...@apple.com Runtime Wrangler _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
