This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012

On 5/21/2012 10:18 AM, James Johnston wrote:
And there is not a single user who will notice or care that the second example has a larger 64-bit image by a few hundred KB larger. 64-bit Intel architecture instructions aren't necessarily twice the width as 32-bit architecture instructions.
I'm not sure how you can say this. There are people who do care and do notice. So instead of using absolutes (there is not a single user) implying without exception you should use something like "Most users will not notice or care".
Small is beautiful.
In general I agree; controlling the bloat is a worthwhile (and needed) activity for some apps. But for me, bloat due to 64-bit compilation is worth it.
And for others...?
I have enough RAM that I can fit images into physical memory, and then the runtime improvements of 64-bit can kick in (faster, more address space). I would not mind it at all if every image on my Windows PC could be 64-bit! App crashing due to address space exhaustion in 32-bit apps is not something I enjoy dealing with.

I've got 6 GB RAM on my work computer, and that's usually plenty; the only time it understandably slows down is when using multiple virtual machines.
In my line of work I (unfortunately) often have to run up to 3 JVMs at a time. Thunderbird takes a chunk (I think Lightning leaks memory) as does Chrome. Hell Chrome takes most of it. I often get to the point of addressing exceptions and even crashes of apps and protestations of "Out of memory". I have 4 gig of memory.

IMHO it's the thinking of "Well hell we have tons of memory/disk/whatever. Why don't we waste it?" which eventually causes the mentality of "don't worry about it" that leads to bloating.

In any event, I remain unconvinced that a 64 bit Cygwin is required or necessary or even worth it at this time. The only argument even 1/2 way compelling is your statement that there are some Windows server editions that lack the 32-bit subsystem. I was unaware that that was even happening and it is the first time I've heard of it.

Anyway I think I'm done with this topic.

Andrew DeFaria <>
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

-- Problem reports: FAQ: Documentation: Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]