reboot12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 21 minutes ago, 66cats said: You'll notice that x64 XP itself uses more memory than x86 What does it have to do with it ? - I don't use WinXP 32-bit I compared the Supermium x86 vs Supermium x64 only on WinXP 64-bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
66cats Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 48 minutes ago, reboot12 said: What does it have to do with it ? Supermium 32 usues 32-bit code, supermium 64 use 64; 64-bit code uses more memory, because it uses 64-bit words. Think of it this way: One book is written in a language in which all words are exactly 32-letters long. Each word, no matter how simple, is made up of 32 letters. The book becomes a best seller, and is translated into an even stupider language -- one in which every word is exactly 64 letters long. The languages are otherwise identical, so the translation's both accurate and exact, though the translated book is somehow thicker than the original. Why would that be? Edit: of course it's more complicated than this, but 32-bit code will always be lighter. not 50% lighter, but lighter. Not sure what WOW64 does with 32-bit code, so could be totally wrong here. Edited February 17 by 66cats 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkinis Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 hour ago, reboot12 said: Not true - I use WinXP SP2 64-bit for a long time on 4GB RAM with the pagefile turned off and nothing bad happens. I'm not here to convince a tech-savvy like you. there are plenty of links on google that prove you wrong though and I have experienced it myself on Win7 with pagefile disabled. https://smallvoid.com/article/windows-disable-page-file.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reboot12 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 47 minutes ago, 66cats said: 64-bit code uses more memory, because it uses 64-bit words. Not true - it depends on the source code. Example 32-bit applications occupy more RAM than 64-bit versions: x64 C:\WINDOWS\system32\mspaint.exe > 7 660 KB x86 C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64\mspaint.exe > 8 848 KB x64 BlueScreenView (NirSoft) > 4 748 KB x86 BlueScreenView (NirSoft) > 4 832 KB x64 C:\WINDOWS\system32\notepad.exe > 3 464 KB x86 C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64\notepad.exe > 4 072 KB Edited February 17 by reboot12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
66cats Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 18 minutes ago, reboot12 said: x64 C:\WINDOWS\system32\notepad.exe > 3 464 KB x86 C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64\notepad.exe > 4 072 KB Dual-boot XP 32 & 64. What am i doing wrong? https://imgur.com/Daa5VB8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mina7601 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 5 hours ago, Dave-H said: I had a bit of a laugh when I came to add an image to a post here, to see this - The file open dialogue looks like something from a 16-bit Windows 98 program! It doesn't work either. Drag and drop does work. Already reported and it will be fixed next version. https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/245 Edited February 17 by mina7601 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-H Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Thanks, that's good to know! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VistaLover Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 5 hours ago, 66cats said: What am i doing wrong? ... You're NOT doing it wrong , rather different; reboot12 compared the same 32-bit vs 64-bit apps, but said 32-bit app variants reside inside the 32-bit subsystem (SysWOW64) extant in his 64-bit OS; can't tell who's right or wrong that way, as the results are certain to differ, aren't they? ... ... Darn! I wasn't paying attention ... The KBs in reboot12's post were pertaining to RAM usage, not to .EXE file sizes, which is what, apparently, is being compared in 66cats's screengrab; in any case, I expect the "behaviour" of (32-bit) EXEs inside SysWOW64 (unique to x64 OS) to be different to the "behaviour" of the (32-bit) same EXEs inside System32 of a x86 OS... Edited February 18 by VistaLover Got it wrong initially... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
66cats Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 (edited) 5 hours ago, VistaLover said: The KBs in reboot12's post were pertaining to RAM usage, not to .EXE file sizes, Thanks, gotcha. On my x64: Inexplicable :| P.S. just in case there's doubt, both notepads are empty. Edited February 18 by 66cats 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 14 hours ago, reboot12 said: Not true - it depends on the source code. Example 32-bit applications occupy more RAM than 64-bit versions: x64 C:\WINDOWS\system32\mspaint.exe > 7 660 KB x86 C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64\mspaint.exe > 8 848 KB x64 BlueScreenView (NirSoft) > 4 748 KB x86 BlueScreenView (NirSoft) > 4 832 KB x64 C:\WINDOWS\system32\notepad.exe > 3 464 KB x86 C:\WINDOWS\SysWOW64\notepad.exe > 4 072 KB It's because you run x86 apps on a 64bit OS. Obviously it involves more resources since OS runs them in a wrapper (those are marked with*). @66catsis right, I can confirm. The same case is with Supermium. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 14 hours ago, Milkinis said: I'm not here to convince a tech-savvy like you. there are plenty of links on google that prove you wrong though and I have experienced it myself on Win7 with pagefile disabled. https://smallvoid.com/article/windows-disable-page-file.html I've been running without page file for decades, as of now 16GB is more than enough to switch it off for Supermium, on the other hand, I agree with you, don't do it if you RAM is 8GB or less. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 15 hours ago, 66cats said: Supermium 32 usues 32-bit code, supermium 64 use 64; 64-bit code uses more memory, because it uses 64-bit words. Think of it this way: One book is written in a language in which all words are exactly 32-letters long. Each word, no matter how simple, is made up of 32 letters. The book becomes a best seller, and is translated into an even stupider language -- one in which every word is exactly 64 letters long. The languages are otherwise identical, so the translation's both accurate and exact, though the translated book is somehow thicker than the original. Why would that be? Edit: of course it's more complicated than this, but 32-bit code will always be lighter. not 50% lighter, but lighter. Not sure what WOW64 does with 32-bit code, so could be totally wrong here. Yes, but a 64bit app simply able to allocate much more memory, so it's an obvious choice for all RAM hungry websites. 32bits are artificially limited. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 Have either of you ever tried to "allow more RAM" for 32 bit apps with a simple CFF Explorer fix? (It's an edit in their executable) 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixel Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 There is a documented bug with SSL certificates. I suggest a temp. fix, but be warned, it not advisable to use with unknown websites!. Simply add this flag via CMD. (to your shortcut, for example) --ignore-certificate-errors Without quotes, 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkinis Posted February 18 Share Posted February 18 1 hour ago, Dixel said: I've been running without page file for decades, as of now 16GB is more than enough to switch it off for Supermium https://linustechtips.com/topic/1373108-should-i-disable-page-file-on-windows-if-i-have-plenty-of-ram/?do=findComment&comment=14989470 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now