Why isn't there a 64 bit version of Foobar2000 ?
Jan 14, 2009 at 8:46 PM Post #31 of 46

daglesj

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Posts
176
Likes
11
This is one of the funniest threads I've seen in ages.

"I want a 64 lane freeway cos it would be cool to have it. We have a 32 lane freeway already that we dont really use but obviously more is better right?"

Some apps just really dont need converting to 64bit anytime soon if ever. Dont try to make pumping out digital 2 channel stereo any more complicated. We've been doing it pretty well since the early 80's when we only had 8 bit computers.
 
Jan 14, 2009 at 11:00 PM Post #32 of 46

lo-phi

New Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Posts
14
Likes
0
Limitations of the Windows 32-bit environment (as opposted to the Windows 64-bit environment)

(1) Limited to two processors.
(2) Individual applications are limited to 3GB of RAM.

Also, consider that all Foobar (and other Media Players) does is convert file data (mp3/wav/flac/ape/etc) which your audio drivers don't understand into the data it expects, at which point the entire show goes over to your audio card / DAC. That translation processes is really easy from a PC's point of view. My most bloated media player (WMP11) doesn't even break 35MB or 200MHz, and Foobar uses much, much less of both. Hell, I don't have a single application that requires over 3GB of RAM, not Age of Conan, not Crysis, not NFS Undercover; not even Vista itself!

EDIT: Wow, I don't know how or why I wrote that nonsense. If it weren't for all the people below calling me out on it I wouldn't have noticed. Sorry, the CPU limit in XP 32-bit is two physical processors with as many cores as you want (theoretically).
 
Jan 15, 2009 at 10:44 AM Post #33 of 46

torjeh

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Posts
104
Likes
10
Quote:

Originally Posted by lo-phi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Limitations of the Windows 32-bit environment (as opposted to the Windows 64-bit environment)

(1) Limited to two processing cores (either two single-core processors, or a single dual-core processor).



I find it hard to believe that the 32-bit Windows environment does not support quad-core processors. Could you elaborate?

Some versions might not support dual-sockets (as in several physical CPUs), but not supporting quad-core processors seems very strange in my humble opinion.
 
Jan 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM Post #34 of 46

Nebby

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Posts
2,201
Likes
19
No offense intended, but where are you getting those numbers lo-phi?

Microsoft defines a processor as:
Quote:

Q. What is a "processor"?

A. A physical processor is a single chip that houses a collection of one or more cores. A core is a collection of one or more processor threads and a set of shared execution resources. A processor thread is the architectural state within a processor that tracks execution of a software program thread/task.


reference (bit old-updated 2007, but still applies): Multicore Processor Licensing

According to this page, the only difference between xp 32 and 64bit is the memory supported:
Processor and memory capabilities of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and of the x64-based versions of Windows Server 2003

Vista is slightly different:
Quote:

While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only Windows Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors.


Get Windows Vista: System requirements

To remain on topic: as was indicated in the linked thread, creating a 64bit version of foobar is a relatively massive undertaking for very little to no benefit.
 
Jan 15, 2009 at 11:30 AM Post #35 of 46

daglesj

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Posts
176
Likes
11
I think confusion has crept in from the concepts of -

Multiple CORES in a single CPU

and

Multiple CPUs

Two very different things.
 
Jan 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM Post #37 of 46

lo-phi

New Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Posts
14
Likes
0
Thank you all for calling me out on that immense ********. I've punched myself across the face as penace. I especially don't how I could write that bull considering I put together a 32-bit server with a quad-core processor...

I literally had to do a double take: "Wait, what the (*&^ did I write? You stupid bastard!" *le punch*

...

But I hold on my stance that foobar doesn't need access to more processing power or memory! Maybe it could use an update to avoid 32-in-64 errors, but the 64-in-64 won't perform any better than the 32-in-32.
 
Jan 15, 2009 at 1:06 PM Post #38 of 46

daglesj

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Posts
176
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally Posted by lo-phi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Thank you all for calling me out on that immense ********. I've punched myself across the face as penace. I especially don't how I could write that bull considering I put together a 32-bit server with a quad-core processor...

I literally had to do a double take: "Wait, what the (*&^ did I write? You stupid bastard!" *le punch*



I wouldnt worry, we all have our moments like that.
regular_smile .gif
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 6:47 AM Post #39 of 46

L_and_P21

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Posts
38
Likes
0
sorry to bring up a 10 day old thread but from what i read some people are missing a point. if you have a 64 bit version and running a 32 bit program you are using the WoW emulator. built by microsoft and a big cause, or was, for a lot of the early 64-32 bit compatibility issues. so from what i see the only reason to have a 64 bit version is so that it is a native program. but then again. the WoW emulator seems to work fine for all the 32 bit programs i run, including foobar. i have had no problems.
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM Post #42 of 46

Nebby

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Posts
2,201
Likes
19
"Better" is subjective. From a development standpoint, there is absolutely no real benefit from making it 64bit, just a whole lot of headache. Realistically speaking, IF the developers were to start work on a 64bit version, it would undoubtedly be quite buggy for some time before it would be stable, so it would actually get WORSE before it can even MATCH the state of the 32bit version

That being said, MS did a fantastic job on the WOW emulator (that being it's current state).
 
Jan 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM Post #43 of 46

hohum

New Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Posts
44
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yep, Like I have said, using 64 bit on a 64 bit OS will be better.
No one can deny it.
Maybe it won't be much better, but still it will better.



With current processors, there will be no performance or other benefits whatsoever for what is a [relatively] basic/lightweight application. At the moment all 64-bit capable CPUs are running 32-bit code on pure hardware (WOW doesn't actually emulate anything, hence why 32-bit apps run just as fast under a 64-bit environment). The only reason for a 64-bit version of foobar to exist is when future desktop processors are 64-bit only (long while off yet I'd imagine, but inevitable). At that time, 32-bit applications would have to be emulated in software, thus a performance hit.
 
Jan 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM Post #45 of 46

daglesj

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Posts
176
Likes
11
Oh but its making me laugh. Carry on.

I want a 64bit version of Solitaire and Amipro too!

Anyone else want some totally unneccessary and pointless 64bit conversions?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top