Native 64-bit support
-
Hello,
i still think the task to support native x64 should be made.
even if there is only a 5% - 8% Speed Inrcrease of Compression/Decompression.I Have different Archivers Running on Windows 7 x64 and Windows 7 x86 (on my Notebook, will switch later because i need more RAM)
Powerarchiver 11.64
WinRAR 3.93
and
Squeez 5.62On x86 Windows Powerarchiver is the Fastest, closely followed by WinRAR then in the last Place Squeez because it has no Multicore Support is the slowest.
On my x64 Windows WinRAR x64 is the Fastest then comes Powerarchiver and then Squeez witch runs as a Native x64 App - It Still can Keep Up even if the Development Stopped.
-
there is no difference in WR 32bit and 64bit when it comes to extraction, i tested it when we made our improvements to unrar.
-
ie there will be no 5-8% improvement due to 64 bit… but there are improvements to be found in general optimizations to be sure, probably even greater than that…
We will have to make 64bit version once 64bit delphi compiler comes out, mostly because it is marketing - you cant convince people there are no tangible differences :)… It is easier to advertise “64bit version - faster and more secure!!!”.
-
Hello,
that maybe so for Extraction/Decompression but on my PC the Compression is faster not by much but Still faster.
Ok. That Delphi (or RAD Studio) still no x64 Compiler has is strange and is a Problem. So I guess we have to wait.
-
Hello,
that maybe so for Extraction/Decompression but on my PC the Compression is faster not by much but Still faster.
indeed - it is faster for sure, i tested it - we are talking about WR though, so you cant compare it to PA directly :).
but here is the thing - we managed to make much bigger improvements in 32bit (and 32bit in 64bit OS) with general optimizations in unrar, so i would guess if we could create rars, we could do similar types of improvements as well :).
-
indeed - it is faster for sure, i tested it - we are talking about WR though, so you cant compare it to PA directly :).
That is so with most of the Archivers or Compression Programms. :-) Even if You could compare them because they can compress the same formats. There is still no direct Comparsion possible.
but here is the thing - we managed to make much bigger improvements in 32bit (and 32bit in 64bit OS) with general optimizations in unrar, so i would guess if we could create rars, we could do similar types of improvements as well :).
Yes. I think you could. ;-) Witch is why i also bought Powerarchiver. If you also could add some features i need witch are present in the Other Archivers i think i could and would Stop using WinRAR and Squeez.
Best Regards,
R. Landscheidt
-
well post away with the wishes so we can know what you want!
-
Hello,
Well i think i posted them in "What format next? December 2009) but i’l make an new Thread with them.
-
Hello,
i still think the task to support native x64 should be made.
even if there is only a 5% - 8% Speed Inrcrease of Compression/Decompression.I wonder how you managed to measure those differences. <10% is not noticeable in general use.
DrT
-
Hello,
Well i think i posted them in "What format next? December 2009) but i’l make an new Thread with them.
one thread per major wish, thats much easier for us to keep track of things…
-
Here you go:
http://www.powerarchiver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4867new thoughts on 32bit or 64bit dilemma… post away!
-
64bit engine version for new PAF? Vote away here:
http://ideas.powerarchiver.com/ -
I know I might be going over new ground but correct me if I’m wrong.
doesn’t powerarchiver need to access file management tools to get files. File managers need to access the 64bit windows file system why doesn’t powerarchiver?
-
@splash3313 said in Native 64-bit support:
I know I might be going over new ground but correct me if I’m wrong.
doesn’t powerarchiver need to access file management tools to get files. File managers need to access the 64bit windows file system why doesn’t powerarchiver?
As mentioned recently on forums, x64 is coming with PA 2017.
But as to your question, PA 2016 already has x64 parts such as shell extensions so it works properly. PA 2017 will be full x64 so we can address more than 2 GB of memory for new format.
-
@splash3313 Ah, so you’re one of those weirdos that denies that 32 bit software runs on 64 bit Windows :-)
-
Actually 32 bit software will run just will have problems on 64bit computers when it comes to file management not my words microsofts.
-
@splash3313 Can you provide a reference for that please?
-
@Brian-Gregory https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20081222-00/?p=19763/
basicalyl the link is old but gets to the point that a 64bit operating system use emulation to run 32 bit software.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/32-bit-64-bit-operating-systems/
-
64bit and 32 bit store files slightly different that is why on a 64 bit system programs that are v32 bit might not be able to see all files available on your computer.
-
x86 programs run perfectly (and start faster) on x64 system. Only thing not available is addressing over 2GB of memory.
Since in 2017 we are adding our own format where you can use more than 5-6 GB of memory, realistically, when needed, we are also adding full x64 version of PA.
Also, codecs built from grounds up might support faster instructions in x64, so with .pa format you will see up to 30% faster performance in x64 than in x86… for .zip, performance difference is nowhere as close, if any.
