Re: Ratdude's Main rig V3.5
Please do, because that's news to me.
Even if you directly port 32bit programs to 64bit executables, you don't get twice the memory usage.... and it's the first time I hear about memory addressing making applications use twice the memory.
For example, let's say an application holds a bitmap or an icon in memory, using 4 bytes (32bits) for each pixel (red,green,blue, alphablending/transparency).. when you port the application to 64bits, you won't suddenly have 8 bytes per pixel, only the one variable holding the location in memory of the bitmap changes from 4 bytes to 8 ... so you get 4 bytes extra per pointer.
Sure, the OS would use a bit more memory as well to keep track of each app's memory pool but there's things like binary trees and so on on, the os doesn't just double the ram it uses and blocks it, that's silly... and even if it does we're talking a few hundred mb at best from 8-16 gigs.
Anyway, I'm gonna stop, like i said it's off topic.
Please do, because that's news to me.
Even if you directly port 32bit programs to 64bit executables, you don't get twice the memory usage.... and it's the first time I hear about memory addressing making applications use twice the memory.
For example, let's say an application holds a bitmap or an icon in memory, using 4 bytes (32bits) for each pixel (red,green,blue, alphablending/transparency).. when you port the application to 64bits, you won't suddenly have 8 bytes per pixel, only the one variable holding the location in memory of the bitmap changes from 4 bytes to 8 ... so you get 4 bytes extra per pointer.
Sure, the OS would use a bit more memory as well to keep track of each app's memory pool but there's things like binary trees and so on on, the os doesn't just double the ram it uses and blocks it, that's silly... and even if it does we're talking a few hundred mb at best from 8-16 gigs.
Anyway, I'm gonna stop, like i said it's off topic.
Comment