Dropping 32-bit support (was Branches)
Johannes.Schindelin at gmx.de
Mon Feb 27 15:52:57 PST 2012
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Paul Hohensee wrote:
> Imo, it's very unlikely that 64-bit build footprint will ever be an
> issue, and 32-bit build footprint would be an issue on memory-limited
> devices, of which there are none that run OSX. The real utility of
> 32-bit is compatibility.
Compatibility is a big issue (see e.g. Apple's support for
Quicktime4Java), but footprint is definitely also an issue.
For example, we are running a few data-intensive tasks on a machine with
128G RAM and manage to run out of memory (we are managing terabytes of
data, one microscope we use can produce >1TB data in less than 2 hours).
Now, a couple of these tasks have been streamlined to be able to page to
disk so they run on normal computers (our standard desktops do not have
128G RAM, but rather 2-4), but the fewer bytes we require to be in RAM per
dataset, the fewer page accesses we have, the faster the application runs.
> I'd just go with universal binaries and not bother with 32/64 options.
That would be the preferable solution for us, too.
More information about the macosx-port-dev