[HeadLover]

I wonder, cause many of us using XP or VISTA 64 bit (or even 7 - 64 bit)

Why not doing a 64 bit version?
It will be much better by having the ability to use more mem if needed, and more compatible with the OS

 

[Jigglybootch]

Because a mere 64 bits is not enough to contain the awesomeness of foobar2000. Or course, that doesn't explain why there's a 32-bit version.

I really need more sleep.

 

[progo]

You should ask the developer.
Compiling an app that's been developed for 32 bit can be a bitch to compile for 64 bit. There are differences that need time and effort to fix. Most devs think the 64 bit apps aren't worth it as the 32 bit environments are vastly more common.

 

[HeadLover]

I really hope to see 64 bit version soon!
I mean, 64 bit is the future, 32 bit will and should disappear.

 

[davidw89]

Just run the 32bit version on 64 bit machine.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadLover /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wonder, cause many of us using XP or VISTA 64 bit (or even 7 - 64 bit) Why not doing a 64 bit version? It will be much better by having the ability to use more mem if needed, and more compatible with the OS

You're kidding, right?

You really want a version of Foobar that utilizes more than 2GB of RAM?

-Ed

 

[HeadLover]

64 bit has many good things.
And yea, I am using the 32 bit version right now, but it will be better to have a fully functional 64 bit version of the great Foobar2000

 

[torjeh]

I doubt I would notice any difference between a 32 bit and 64 bit version of the great Foobar2000.

When also considering the effort it takes to maintain two versions of the same product, and whatever problems might appear with plugin-ins and whatnot, there are probably better ways to spend the effort to make foobar2000 a better product.

But hey, they are probably eager to move to 64 bit when the time is right

 

[krmathis]

Probably because the developer (Peter Pawlowski) have not found it worthy spending time tweaking the source to get a clean 64-bit compile.

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

Wasn't foobar designed to be a LIGHTWEIGHT and simplified player?

 

[HeadLover]

64 bit won't make it worst.
In fact, think of it this way, right now when you CPU grab a word, he take a 32 bit each time, in a 64 bit, he takes 64 bit.
This will allows us even to have a better SQ due to more bandwidth
(I guess so)

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

I seriously don't a point of making it 64 bit if your buffer for the output is big enough anyways. It's not like playing a music file is like video/audio editing where the processing is on-the-fly.

 

[HeadLover]

CPU is like 1,000,000 times faster than our HD
So yes, maybe there will be a less JITTER that way.

 

[ZephyrSapphire]

What does memory buffer have to do with HD?

 

[Zorander]

What is the advantage of a 64-bit version?