Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jun 2010 22:59 UTC
Multimedia, AV It's been a very long wait, but the release is finally here: Adobe has released Flash Player 10.1. Since Flash has come under increasing scrutiny, there's a lot at stake here for Adobe. This release is supposed to use far less resources while still being faster, more stable, and more secure. Update: No 64bit Flash player for now - on any platform. The Linux beta has been axed.
Permalink for comment 429698
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by gilboa on Fri 11th Jun 2010 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

As _xmv said, except for the performance thing, couldn't most of this be achieved by using 64-bit in the OS and in high-performance apps, while keeping low-end apps 32-bit ? I mean, things like Flash Player won't ever eat up more than 2GB...


I believe you failed to understand the importance of the "performance" thing.
When you target i686, most compilers assume that you have a Pentium or above - which means MXX only.
When you target x86_64, most compilers assume that you have an AMD Athlon64 or above - which means MMX, SSE and SSE2.
Now add the additional GP registers to the mix, and you can have far better -application- performance.

Another issue: I use a number of 32bit applications on my main workstation: A couple of native games, flash w/ nspluginwrapper and skype. In-order to support them, more than 10% of all my root file-system is "wasted" on 32bit libraries.
It might not sound like much, but the same 10% is wasted everytime I update my Fedora or switch to new Fedora release.

If -all- my applications were 32bit, I can only guess that I'll lose an additional 20-30%. (I would still require a lot of 64bit libraries for basic OS functionality and -full- 32bit library stack for all my applications)

Both disk and bandwidth wise, a pure 32bit or 64bit is the best option.

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 4