Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: foobar2000 for x64 (Read 20700 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

foobar2000 for x64

Hello,

I would like when x64 version release ?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,

Neustradamus

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #1 –
Hello,

I would like why x64 version release ?

Thanks in advance,

Regards,

Yirkha
Full-quoting makes you scroll past the same junk over and over.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #3 –
x64 CPUs and Windows 64 versions run 32bit applications fine.
Full-quoting makes you scroll past the same junk over and over.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #5 –
What specifically would make it better?
Full-quoting makes you scroll past the same junk over and over.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #6 –
It will go to 11.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #7 –
Actually, if going "to 10" is tied to the machine's word length, changing from x86 to x64 builds should allow foobar2000 to go to 100.

However, this is total nonsense.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #8 –
foobar on an IA-64 processor, that sounds fun. But on an x86_64 processor, which is probably what you really meant, there shouldn't be any problem with 32-bit. I don't know of any other 64-bit players either.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #9 –
ALL third-party component DLLs would have to be provided in both 32 and 64bit versions. You all remember the mess when only a few of them stopped working under Vista, right?

And I think some internal tests of 64bit builds have been made. If there was some magic performance boost or whatever, they might as well be already available.
Full-quoting makes you scroll past the same junk over and over.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Yirkha on
ALL third-party component DLLs would have to be provided in both 32 and 64bit versions. You all remember the mess when only a few of them stopped working under Vista, right?

I don't think it would be such a mess.

64bit PC -> all components available in 64bit -> 64bit foobar2000

64bit PC -> not all components are available in 64bit -> 32bit foobar with 32bit components


It's a bit more compiling/coding work for devs though, if they're willing to provide 64bit components.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #11 –
More important was actually the second part - there is no need for an x64 port ("I want only pure 64bit appz on my comp!" doesn't count), therefore further discussion about its possible consequences is useless.
Full-quoting makes you scroll past the same junk over and over.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Yirkha on
More important was actually the second part - there is no need for an x64 port ("I want only pure 64bit appz on my comp!" doesn't count), therefore further discussion about its possible consequences is useless.

That's true.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Emon on
Quote from: LethAL on
But on an x86_64 processor, which is probably what you really meant

x86_64 is x64.

 
He was referring to IA-64, the short term for the Itanium architecture. They're Intels own make of 64bit CPUs which are very different from the x86 architecture.

They came out before AMD released its 64bit extension for x86 CPUs called AMD64. Later Intel developed their own 64bit extension called Intel 64 for their x86 CPUs, based on AMD64. They have some differences but are mainly compatible, so that now all newer x86 CPUs run the same "x64" code, be it Athlon, Pentium or Core.

BTW, if you want the main program to be a 64bit application, the entire codebase of the main program and components has to be 64bit compatible, unless you write a wrapper which means a performance decrease for those 32bit components, such a wrapper is Windows' WoW64 for example for running 32bit aplications and dlls in the 64bit versions of Windows, of course this can't be used for foobar2000 since it only works for entire programs and it's closed source, so it can't be adapted for a foobar2000-x64.  A pure 64bit codebase also means that all third party code has to be 64bit ready, meaning all audio codecs, too. Most of these 64bit branches are experimental, if they exist at all. So unless someone is happy with playback of WAV, MP3 and maybe one more codec only, he can keep his dream... the fb2k devs are probably not happy with that.

PS: IMHO making foo_converter and some other main components multi-threading is a much more reasonable feature request.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #15 –
I think there is a demand for having a pure x64 environment now.
There exists 64 bit builds of a lot of programs now I have these currently running in x64:

Adobe Photoshop CS4 64 bit
7-zip x64 build
Firefox x64
Internet Explorer is also available in 64 bit on any 64 bit Windows (IA-64 or AMD64)
Media Player Classic Home Cinema 64 bit

Adobe recently released a 64 bit flash plugin for Linux, so it's only a question of time before a Windows 64 bit is released.

64 bit is the future and eventually everybody will move there, but there are still many who don't think there is any gain or reason to do so yet and I agree fully, but sometimes you have to make a first step even if it's not gaining you anything. Just to get on with the times.

If you want MP3 playback (and maybe ogg vorbis too) you can use Media Player Classic Home Cinema 64 bit.
Also for developers the FMOD audio library comes in a 64-bit build ready for use (with MP3, Ogg, etc) here: http://www.fmod.org/index.php/products

No point in nagging for a 64 bit Foobar2000. It just wont happen anytime soon.
64 bit is still seen as a professional platform and only really professional apps (3d modelling, designing) is available for it now.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #16 –
Quote from: saivert on
64 bit is still seen as a professional platform and only really professional apps (3d modelling, designing) is available for it now.
foobar2000 is about as professional as it gets, IMO. These apps you describe are usually ones that have the potential to use more than 32-bits worth of memory, barring the open-source flails. Note that your x64 Firefox is not released by Mozilla.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #17 –
Quote
I think there is a demand for having a pure x64 environment now.
There exists 64 bit builds of a lot of programs now I have these currently running in x64


There still exists 16-bit version of Total Commander (it was released in April'08). So, there is a demand for having 16bit environment...

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #18 –
What I want to know is where is my 8-bit Foobar? If I ever dig my old Commodore 64 out of storage, I might be able to fit nearly 1/100th of an MP3 on it!

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Fandango on
He was referring to IA-64, the short term for the Itanium architecture.

I know what it is. LethAL's post suggested (at least to me) that he was implying a difference between x86_64 and x64.
 

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Neustradamus on
Yes but a x64 version will be better.

Someone believes 64 is "almost always" better/faster than 32, however it is not true in the most situations (It even be worse/slower than 32). At least for foobar2000 I don't think there are any notable benefits.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #22 –
Aside from the increased memory capacity, 64-bit is (essentially) only faster for applications using large numbers (larger than 2^32). On most 32-bit systems you can only store a 32 bits per memory address. That's a limit of 2^32 for unsigned (positive) integers. Larger numbers require storing the number in multiple addresses, and doing operations on them becomes slow as a result. On 64-bit systems, you can fit numbers as large as 2^64, and doing math on them is a single operation again and much faster.

It's obviously more complicated than that, but that's the basic reason. That's why 64-bit systems only offer huge speed improvements for things like scientific computing, where numbers can get huge. For something like foobar, there's no point.

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #23 –
I am happy because a lot of people participate in the topic

foobar2000 for x64

Reply #24 –
So, x64 is neither needed nor necessarily better. Topic closed to avoid further inflating any egos.