4 ms·

I'm surprised at the criticism about 64-bit only. Are people still using 32-bit operating systems?

userbinator 8y ago
Yes. A 32-bit binary will work just fine on a 64-bit OS, but not the other way around, and there's no reason such an app needs 64-bit, so why unnecessarily restrict compatibility?
- self_awareness 8y ago
  I think you're in a minority. Are there any 32-bit CPUs being produced for the mass market these days? Making a 64-bit only software is not only about wanting more than 4gb of ram; it's about debugging support, tooling, installation size and installation packages, etc. It's easier to distribute 64-bit only software than both 32-bit and 64-bit, and you can't distribute 32-bit only software because: 1. macOS will deprecate 32-bit completely soon, 2. Linux needs 32-bit libs installed on the system, and many people don't have them, 3. Windows has really good backward compatibility and still supports 32-bit. But it's the only system. So, distributing a 64-bit-only software actually makes sense.
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    This exactly. When I install something, if it pulls in a ton of stuff, I'll reevaluate whether I actually need it. In fact, I was pretty excited when I finally got rid of my dependency on 32-bit stuff and could eliminate the 32-bit repo. I like 64-bit because it keeps my system clean, but because it's "better". I definitely want a 64-bit OS so some things can use more than 4GB RAM, so why have two copies of everything? Just standardize on the thing nearly everyone uses: 64-bit.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    Are there any 32-bit CPUs being produced for the mass market these days? Can we stop assuming that people are always going to have the latest hardware? Even then, 32-bit SoCs running Linux are still pretty common in various embedded things and other low-power devices --- exactly the use-case for a small and native chat client.
    - marines 8y ago
      You don't need the latest hardware to have a 64-bit CPU. Slack client on an embedded platform? Are you ok?
- ahartmetz 8y ago
  Not exactly true for Linux - a modern Linux desktop usually has only the most basic (libc, ...?) 32 bit libraries installed. Though an AppImage (which Ripcord uses) might work because it's mostly self-contained anyway. On Linux, approximately nobody still uses 32 bit systems.
tatami 8y ago
Honestly I would criticise if it was 32-bit. When can I finally get rid of this stupid "Program Files (x86)" folder which annoys me every time I click into the wrong one looking for my program, when even new programs are released as 32-bit?

Yes. A 32-bit binary will work just fine on a 64-bit OS, but not the other way around, and there's no reason such an app needs 64-bit, so why unnecessarily restrict compatibility?

self_awareness 8y ago
I think you're in a minority. Are there any 32-bit CPUs being produced for the mass market these days? Making a 64-bit only software is not only about wanting more than 4gb of ram; it's about debugging support, tooling, installation size and installation packages, etc. It's easier to distribute 64-bit only software than both 32-bit and 64-bit, and you can't distribute 32-bit only software because: 1. macOS will deprecate 32-bit completely soon, 2. Linux needs 32-bit libs installed on the system, and many people don't have them, 3. Windows has really good backward compatibility and still supports 32-bit. But it's the only system. So, distributing a 64-bit-only software actually makes sense.
- beatgammit 8y ago
  This exactly. When I install something, if it pulls in a ton of stuff, I'll reevaluate whether I actually need it. In fact, I was pretty excited when I finally got rid of my dependency on 32-bit stuff and could eliminate the 32-bit repo. I like 64-bit because it keeps my system clean, but because it's "better". I definitely want a 64-bit OS so some things can use more than 4GB RAM, so why have two copies of everything? Just standardize on the thing nearly everyone uses: 64-bit.
- userbinator 8y ago
  Are there any 32-bit CPUs being produced for the mass market these days? Can we stop assuming that people are always going to have the latest hardware? Even then, 32-bit SoCs running Linux are still pretty common in various embedded things and other low-power devices --- exactly the use-case for a small and native chat client.
  - marines 8y ago
    You don't need the latest hardware to have a 64-bit CPU. Slack client on an embedded platform? Are you ok?
ahartmetz 8y ago
Not exactly true for Linux - a modern Linux desktop usually has only the most basic (libc, ...?) 32 bit libraries installed. Though an AppImage (which Ripcord uses) might work because it's mostly self-contained anyway. On Linux, approximately nobody still uses 32 bit systems.

tatami 8y ago

Honestly I would criticise if it was 32-bit. When can I finally get rid of this stupid "Program Files (x86)" folder which annoys me every time I click into the wrong one looking for my program, when even new programs are released as 32-bit?