Delphi 64-bit compiler is now available - TC64 now possible?

asmodeus · Post by *asmodeus » 2011-09-09, 11:37 UTC

Looking here it says that finally there's a 64-bit compiler for Delphi available.

Does this mean all 64-bit Windows users can have a glimpse of hope to see native 64-bit Total Commander without that buggy X64 stub?

MVV · Post by *MVV » 2011-09-09, 12:05 UTC

Please read the forum. There were a lot of such topics. Christian already porting TC to Lazarus, there are a lot of details. TCx64 will be in Lazarus while TCx32 will be still in Delphi.

karlchen · Post by *karlchen » 2011-09-09, 12:11 UTC

MVV wrote:TCx64 will be in Lazarus while TCx32 will be still in Delphi.

Of course, only Christian will be able to tell what he is going to do. Yet, I assume that using two pretty different development environments for future versions of T.C. 32-bit and T.C. 64-bit might cause a lot of extra work. So would it not be more efficient to use Lazarus for the development of T.C. 64-bit and T.C. 32-bit in the end?

Karl

MVV · Post by *MVV » 2011-09-09, 12:16 UTC

It won't be cool if TCx32 will be in Lazarus - EXE size is much bigger.

billiebub · Post by *billiebub » 2011-09-09, 12:57 UTC

You can configure Lazarus to strip out debug info and that would make the EXE a lot smaller. Then combine that with UPX and you should be closer to the 32bit size but a bit larger.

tbeu · Post by *tbeu » 2011-09-09, 13:28 UTC

UPX cannot pack x64 executables. MPRESS can.

MVV · Post by *MVV » 2011-09-09, 14:33 UTC

billiebub, it is wrong to compare UPXed and unpacked size. Anyway, Christian now doesn't pack TC executable because of false positives of dumb AV software.

Sob · Post by *Sob » 2011-09-09, 23:31 UTC

Just out of curiosity, why would anyone care about exe size today? Small floppy disks are long dead, flashdisks are big and harddisks even bigger. Even if running from network share, does anyone have something slower than 100Mbit? I don't get it. There are of course some sane limits, but with all that functionality brought by TC, I'd say anything under 10MB is perfectly ok. :)

Sir_SiLvA · Post by *Sir_SiLvA » 2011-09-09, 23:43 UTC

Sob wrote:Just out of curiosity, why would anyone care about exe size today? Small floppy disks are long dead, flashdisks are big and harddisks even bigger. Even if running from network share, does anyone have something slower than 100Mbit? I don't get it. There are of course some sane limits, but with all that functionality brought by TC, I'd say anything under 10MB is perfectly ok.

Why WOULDNT ANYONE?
Noone needs to be shitty like MS and Adobe and all the other BIG FIRMS who wastes my space like they OWN it...

And in a world where Internet-Ressources is NOT FREE for all every bit counts...

Its like with Cash - Just cause you have 1 million do you have to spent it all at once?...

Balderstrom · Post by *Balderstrom » 2011-09-10, 01:49 UTC

I don't particularly care, Software I use ranges from a couple KB scripts to GB's for games. Not including scripts, utilities, suites or games the software size range is likely between 500kb and 30,000 KB.

Now while TC proper might only be 3-4MB - to make it even worth using you need 10-30MB or more in plugins (and I don't even have that many plugins installed).

A dozen medium sized, medium quality jpegs take up a MB - and a single large high quality jpeg can be 1-5MB's all by itself.

A single PDF RPG Book with embedded images can range from 2-3MB to 100MB (if it was scanned without OCR and each text page as an image).

So are we really going to quibble over the matter whether the next TC install is 3, 6, or 12+ MB ? Not really.

Sob · Post by *Sob » 2011-09-10, 02:06 UTC

Don't get me wrong, I do care myself, but within certain limits. If TC 8.0 came lets say 20MB in size, to choose some undoubtfully too big value indicating the presence of unnecessary bloat, I'd be one of the first users to start the new thread, politely asking Mr. Ghisler if something didn't go horribly wrong. And of course I like small programs in general, they bring this great feeling of effectiveness. :)

But if we're talking about sizes indicated in the other thread (5.5 / 7 MB for 32/64-bit TC), I don't see what's such a big deal. Other than based on general principle "small = cool / big = not cool".

billiebub · Post by *billiebub » 2011-09-11, 14:27 UTC

UPX in nature does unpack the EXE in memory I admit to that infact the whole decompression is memory inefficient as the decompressor has to allocate memory for the decompressed data every time the EXE is loaded and for some of us who load TC more than once, this can be a disadvantage.

My whole point was to compress the EXE even further. The assumption here is that all executables will become 64bit and so UPX will one day be one of them

billiebub, it is wrong to compare UPXed and unpacked size

I wasn't comparing apples to oranges here. I was just stating how to minimize the EXE size. I've been doing for the longest time since I like tiny things in general

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2011-09-12, 14:44 UTC

The 64-bit EXE is only about twice the size of the 32-bit EXE, so it's not a big problem.