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.
Thread beginning with comment 429644
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by ggeldenhuys on Fri 11th Jun 2010 07:20 UTC
Member since:

Just downloaded 10.1 for Linux, and it didn't work. On closer inspection I noticed it's a 32-bit only release, no 64-bit versions available yet! WTF!!

Reply Score: 2

RE: No 64-bit yet! So useless!
by Neolander on Fri 11th Jun 2010 07:54 in reply to "No 64-bit yet! So useless!"
Neolander Member since:

Out of curiosity, what do you all need 64-bit for on a desktop OS ?

Myself, I love the improvements in AMD64 as an architecture, but seriously, who really needs more than 4 GB of RAM on a desktop computer as of today, except for running a few overtaxed Windows/OSX programs like Adobe's CS ?



Understood !

Edited 2010-06-11 07:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bending Unit Member since:

Out of curiosity, what do you all need 64-bit for on a desktop OS ?

Because we want to use all of our 4 GB RAM obviously. You generally don't want to buy new computers with less.

Reply Parent Score: 2

renox Member since:

Out of curiosity, what do you all need 64-bit for on a desktop OS ?

Probably because they want to use their CPU at their fullest: remember that with the new registers x86-64 can bring up to a 20% performance improvement, so it's not only the memory..

Sure, this happens only on very few applications, but it's still annoying to not be able to use your computer "efficiently" due to poor software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

gilboa Member since:

Generic answers:

- Multi-tasking. The more tasks you keep in the background the more memory you need. Want to keep browser full of open tabs, 6-7 copies of (Open)Office, a couple of PDF's, email client, listen to music and edit a huge image in GIMP - you need memory and lots of it. Doing it with 2GB of RAM is simply not enough. Trying to use more than 2GB of RAM on a 32bit machine, even with a 4G/4G kernel is anything but efficient.

- Disk caching. The more memory you have, the more memory OS can use for caching. Try reopening (again and again) a 200MB file in 1GB 32bit and on 4GB 64bit machine you'll understand what I mean.

- Gaming. While I usually play Linux games (and rarely do the same under Window) games tend to want a lot of memory. E.g. X3/Linux can easily take 2-2.3GB of RAM once your empire grows. I can only assume that recent 32bit Windows game are coming close to overflowing their memory space (2-3GB) making 64bit a must. Try running a recent game on a heavily multi-tasking 32bit machine (Item I) without closing applications and you'll start swapping pages, badly.

- Virtualization. Doing virtualization, with or without hardware virt support on a 32bit machine is plain stupid. (Virtualization cares less about CPU power and -far- more about memory)

- Performance (Added registers, additional instructions). x86_64 has twice the GP registers as i686 and by default has access to large number of additional instructions (E.g. an i686 binary cannot relay on having SSE and SSE2). If you ever looked at the assembly dump of an -optimized- x86_64 application compared to its i686 port, you'll understand why a well optimized x86_64 can actually be 2x as fast as it's i686 counterpart (And even more).
Heck, under certain conditions, I saw a 5/1 performance increase in one of my own applications (That was partially written in assembly).

So, if your usage case is low-end desktop or Internet only usage, 2GB/32bit is more than enough.
If you are doing anything else, 64bit is a -must-.

Given the years it takes to get a 64bit port out, I can only assume that Adobe devs cared little about times (E.g. mixing long, int and native Windows types) making a 64bit port far harder then a platform port (Read: Windows to Linux/MAC).

Just to put this in perspective:
My dual Xeon 55xx workstation has 12GB RAM and Fedora 13/x86_64.
I'm currently running two CentOS VM's (testing my code), couple of VI's editing the code, browser full of tabs, a couple of copies of OpenOffice calc (Excel), evolution mail client, amarok (Feature full music player), ktorrent (torrent client) downloading Linux ISO's, KDE (desktop environment) 4.4.4 with all the bells and whistles, and yum (package manager) is downloading updates in the background.
My machine uses ~8GB for applications (~6GB goes to the VM's), 3GB for caching and 1GB free.

- Gilboa

Edited 2010-06-11 10:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Tuxie Member since:


I have 8 GB RAM in my desktop machine and I run lots of things at the same time, including several virtual machines for development and sandboxing risky stuff like P2P. I wouldn't settle for much less.

I somewhat agree with you, though. It would be enough in almost all cases to have a 64-bit kernel with a 32-bit userland. For some weird reason non of the distributions offer the option to use a 64-bit kernel for their 32-bit versions, AFAIK.

Reply Parent Score: 1

ggeldenhuys Member since:

Out of curiosity, what do you all need 64-bit for on a desktop OS ?

I think everybody else gave pretty much all the answers. I am a developer by trade and use VirtualBox sessions a lot, and often run 2 or more VM session while testing on various platforms.

Not to mention that I find leaving application open and simply switching to them much faster that start them up over and over. So with 6 virtual desktops available, I run 10-20 applications simultaneously very often. So being able to use the full 4GB or more is great - after all, I paid for it.

Reply Parent Score: 1