64-Bit Windows Development

[Jim Seekamp]

Are there any plans for a PBWin for 64-bit development?
Also, how would you write a 64-bit application in PBWin if there was a 64-bit app compiler? Would all the 32-bit parameter variables change to 64-bit variables? Is that all that would change??

[Michael Mattias]

how would you write a 64-bit application in PBWin if there was a 64-bit app compiler?

IF.. END IF, OPEN, CLOSE, DO...LOOP, etc would be good. Then you would compile and run.

Would all the 32-bit parameter variables change to 64-bit variables? Is that all that would change??

The data type of parameters is application-defined. But assuming a 64-bit compiler were optimized for 64-bit operands, that's probably what I would do.

You license a compiler because these are the kinds of things you don't want to be bothered thinking about... you want to work in your familiar source language and pay someone else (the compiler publisher) to worry about all that icky operating system stuff.

MCM

[Jim Seekamp]

Are there any plans for a PBWin for 64-Bit apps??

[Kev Peel]

Plenty of stuff would need to be changed/updated. A few things would be: assembler code, 64-bit arithmetic for pointers, any disk-stored variables possible would need changing to 64-bit, updated include files for Win64, not to mention any nuances the 64-bit API might have in store.

Basically, if your app relies heavily on API calls, assembly, and pointers then it could potentially need many changes. If it uses mostly PB statements, then that is a question for PB.

[Richard Angell]

... and PB does not announce such wine before its time

PB has a no vaporware announcement policy that has been their policy for as long as most of us can recall. This does not mean that they have not received a plethora of NFS requests regarding a 32/64 bit compiler or a pure 64 bit compiler. On the other hand there are still far more 32 bit systems shipping, and much more that could be done before 64 bit rules the market.

So really PB is aware of the requests. That said, I have a laptop with an AMD 64 bit Turon that is running a 32 bit XP Media Edition. It came that way, like most still do ... or with they come with a Vista 32 bit flavor OS.

[John Petty]

IMHO it would be a very small market for PB (less than Linux). 64 Bit processors and 64 Bit Windows have been around for a few years now but there has not been the great rush by software suppliers to convert like there was for going to 32 Bit. The reasons are fairly simple.
The graphics world (games etc) got the perfomance boosts it needed with the MMX and extensions instructions as well as better graphics coprocessors (cards). They don't need a 2^64 colour range
Very few mass market programs would give any noticable speed increase if just converted to 64 bit.
The reason why going to 32 bit was so significant was probably due to other improvements which the spin doctors would have had a hard time explaining ie symetric linear addressing, virtual page addressing and later memory page security.
Actually the last of the horrible design features of the Intel range, little endian, can be also reversed in the current 64 bit processors but creates difficult backward compatability problems.

[Erich Schulman]

Having a no vaporware policy doesn't mean you cannot issue a denial. If TPTB have no intention of supporting Win64, Linux, or whatever, in the next x years (or ever), I wish they would declare that publicly. It would end needless requests and allow those who care about support for (whatever) to stop waiting and look for alternatives.

[Richard Angell]

The 64 bit market will be driven more by a proliferation of mostly 64 bit CPU's with an acceptable availability of mainstream 64 bit applications ... and natch, pre-installed 64 bit Windows with fully compatible drivers. Problem is that most of the market is happy with 32 bits, and there are still some millions of 16 bit apps in use.

Denial would probably be unwise, since market conditions can and definitely do change. and plans also. In most cases a publisher would simply acknowledge that the market is not yet at a point to be attractive enough for development and sustaining of a directed compiler product for example Linux and 64 bit systems.

[Marco Pontello]

Probably worth mentioning:

WindowsITPro - Windows Server 2008 R2: Not Your Average R2 (11th Nov)

[...]
In case you're not familiar with Microsoft's release schedule mantra, the company has promised to ship major updates to Windows Server roughly every four years and then ship minor R2 updates in between. The first such R2 release was Windows Server 2003 R2, which fulfilled its minor update tag by offering just a handful of new features. This time around, however, Server 08 R2 is a much more aggressive release, one that might arguably be more fairly termed a major update.

Given the pace of the IT industry, I believe that Microsoft is doing the right thing with Server 08 R2, however. As previously promised it's the first Server version to come only in x64 variants: 32-bit versions of Windows Server are now officially obsolete.
[...]

Bye!

[Michael Mattias]

If TPTB have no intention of supporting Win64, Linux, or whatever, in the next x years (or ever), I wish they would declare that publicly

Would that not be just as much vaporware as declaring they won't?

[Richard Angell]

Exactly! Well said Michael!

Most of us are aware that 64 bit is definitely happening, the market is changing and quite likely we will be there sooner than later. I doubt that any of us would deny there is not some meaningful market for 64 bit compilers or cross compiling for Linux. Definitely some segment of these markets is for server side applications. Then there are derivative markets for game machine/cell phone/PDA capable compilers as well.

Most here might like to have PB keep expanding PB BASIC, but also implement targeted cross-compiling. Obviously an order of magnitude effort, but after the fact maybe more sustainable than multiple, semi-related compiler products. If and when PB moves in any of these requested directions one thing that you could almost take to the bank ... PB's no vaporware policy will still be followed.

[Scott Slater]

It is my understanding that Windows 7 will not be available in a 32-bit version. This is also supposedly going to be released in the spring of '09, but we know that M$ misses the mark by a good bit on OS release dates.

I am running 64-bit Vista, and it handles 32-bit aps just fine, 16-bit stuff won't work however, so I run a virtual XP machine in VMWare for that purpose.

[Cliff Nichols]

It is my understanding that Windows 7 will not be available in a 32-bit version. This is also supposedly going to be released in the spring of '09, but we know that M$ misses the mark by a good bit on OS release dates.

I will have to investigate this one, but would the general idea be liken to ME and Vista, and their attitude being ("ooooo so sorry, we can not support 1 version back", when the underlying can really support it in most cases???)

I hate to admit it, but sometimes it works, but to me satisfying the customer is much better than "SHUYYYyyyyyaaaa sorry, you will have to do such and such before we can even talk to you") sort of thinking


I guess it depends on your market, and what you are doing, but is it not better to keep the friends you have than to cut them off just cause they do not own a new porsche????

[Gösta H. Lovgren-2]

I guess it depends on your market, and what you are doing, but is it not better to keep the friends you have than to cut them off just cause they do not own a new porsche????

Not if the guys in Boxsters are going to make you more money.

==============================
"Show me a sane man and
I will cure him for you."
Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961)
==============================

[Cliff Nichols]

Not if the guys in Boxsters are going to make you more money.

Huh???
(guessing either a typo, or language barrier, or I just don't get it???)

I guess my point was to not abandon friends of the past just cause something shiny, and do not ignore something shiny just cause tied to the past.

[Theo Gottwald]

I'd be a customer, as i actually use Vista 64 (UAC switched off then its usable like XP) for most thing.

I'd i really enjoy to compile my programms for more then 4 GB RAM as PB is fast enough to handle it.

Maybe the amount of work for Bob to make a 32-bit compiler which produces 64 bit code would not be sooo much as we all think. Also if i remember right, we had a 16 bit compiler producing 32 bit code not so far in the past .

But on the other side the amount of making new versions would be higher.

Anyway I'd buy it. I'll need a 64 bit EXE compiler sooner or later.

[Gösta H. Lovgren-2]

Anyway I'd buy it. I'll need a 64 bit EXE compiler sooner or later.

Do you drive a Boxster, Theo?

===============================
"The backbone of surprise
is fusing speed with secrecy."
Von Clausewitz (1780-1831)
===============================

[Cliff Nichols]

Just out of curiosity, do the programs compiled with PB currently work on a 64bit system? (Since compiled as 32 bit, I would think they would, but can not test)

[Michael Mattias]

>do the programs compiled with PB currently work on a 64bit system?

That would not be a function of the compiler. Either the operating system does or does not run 32-bit executables.

The Windows Vista 64-bit operating system does run 32-bit executables.

[Theo Gottwald]

Just to say that for anybody. I have a program that was compiled with PB for free download
- and it runs very fine on Vista 64.

http://www.it-berater.org/shtmls/IE-7-Safety-Switch.htm

Just that it is an 32 bit EXE while a 64 bit native EXE would even be more performant in some cases.

64 bit is coming - maybe not yet for private Desktops, but its already a part of reality in Bussiness-developement.

Because they have to handle lots of data.

And yes - PB works under Vista 64. Like this:
Compile time: 0.7 seconds, at 12941400 lines/minute

---------------------------------
PowerBASIC for Windows
PB/Win Version 9.00
Copyright (c) 1996-2008 PowerBasic Inc.
Venice, Florida USA
All Rights Reserved
Primary source: F:\00_RPGM\01_PB\01_PRO~1\PB_WIN~1\PB_DIS~1\PB_MIN~1\Mini-Distribute.bas {150983 total lines}
Target compilation: Mini-Distribute.exe

Compile time: 0.7 seconds, at 12941400 lines/minute
47804 bytes compiled code, 42656 bytes RTLibrary,
2768 bytes string literals, and 8104 bytes dgroup.
Executable stack size: 1048576 bytes.
Disk image: 117760 bytes Memory image: 53528 bytes.
Component Files:
----------------
....
==============================
Compile succeeded at 18:00:05 on 19.11.2008

And yes, Jose's Editor also works well under Vista 64, even Firefly works like a charm.

Overall for people who love to use lots of RAM, (8 or 16 GB - like me) Vista 64 is the OS of choice.

Just switch off the UAC and the thing sounds in daily work like an XP.