X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Andrew DeFaria <Andrew AT DeFaria DOT com>
Subject: Re: Is the Latest Release of Cygwin supported on Windows Server 8/2012
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:34:35 -0700
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <jpdubd$4vv$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <CAHomkLT1PncaF4cd0ZMgm4sD1bFvza3DPSUnxLBQ4K5ZLNyu3A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <jp5o12$1fb$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <000601cd351f$da0e4900$8e2adb00$@motionview3d.com> <jp6jdu$nfo$1 AT dough DOT gmane DOT org> <004901cd3775$b5396030$1fac2090$@motionview3d.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
In-Reply-To: <004901cd3775$b5396030$1fac2090$@motionview3d.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 5/21/2012 10:18 AM, James Johnston wrote:
> And there is not a single user who will notice or care that the second 
> example has a larger 64-bit image by a few hundred KB larger. 64-bit 
> Intel architecture instructions aren't necessarily twice the width as 
> 32-bit architecture instructions. 
I'm not sure how you can say this. There are people who do care and do 
notice. So instead of using absolutes (there is not a single user) 
implying without exception you should use something like "Most users 
will not notice or care".
>> Small is beautiful.
> In general I agree; controlling the bloat is a worthwhile (and needed) activity for some apps.  But for me, bloat due to 64-bit compilation is worth it.
And for others...?
> I have enough RAM that I can fit images into physical memory, and then the runtime improvements of 64-bit can kick in (faster, more address space).  I would not mind it at all if every image on my Windows PC could be 64-bit!  App crashing due to address space exhaustion in 32-bit apps is not something I enjoy dealing with.
>
> I've got 6 GB RAM on my work computer, and that's usually plenty; the only time it understandably slows down is when using multiple virtual machines.
In my line of work I (unfortunately) often have to run up to 3 JVMs at a 
time. Thunderbird takes a chunk (I think Lightning leaks memory) as does 
Chrome. Hell Chrome takes most of it. I often get to the point of 
addressing exceptions and even crashes of apps and protestations of "Out 
of memory". I have 4 gig of memory.

IMHO it's the thinking of "Well hell we have tons of 
memory/disk/whatever. Why don't we waste it?" which eventually causes 
the mentality of "don't worry about it" that leads to bloating.

In any event, I remain unconvinced that a 64 bit Cygwin is required or 
necessary or even worth it at this time. The only argument even 1/2 way 
compelling is your statement that there are some Windows server editions 
that lack the 32-bit subsystem. I was unaware that that was even 
happening and it is the first time I've heard of it.

Anyway I think I'm done with this topic.

-- 
Andrew DeFaria <http://defaria.com>
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple