Total Commander

A couple of days I read that the famous Linux distribution 'Ubuntu' considers to no longer offer a 32 bit version as the number of users seems to be really small by now. I wonder what the current state among TC users is.

Please don't consider testing activities during beta test or plugin development - just real use.

You may check more than one answer.

TC 32 bit (64 bit Windows version) for everyday use due to 32bit plugins.
TC 64 bit (64 bit Windows version) for comparing big files only.

Well, Linux is a completely different thing than Windows when it comes to x86 vs. AMD64. AMD64 has always been more smoothly, less problematic on Linux, in my experience anyway. So, if you're not just wondering how many users still use 32 bit TC, the thing is really simple: As long as Microsoft offers a 32 bit version of Windows, there must be a TC 32 bit. My guess is that it will take another 5 to 10 years to migrate to AMD64 completely.

I intend to switch to Win7 later this year, but I'm still going to use TC 32 bit, but also TC 64 bit. 32 bit for daily work and 64 bit for things like native stuff (e.g. Control Panel). And, yes, I'm missing some plugins in TC 64 bit, too. All of the customer's computers get TC 32 bit installed, regardless of the OS; sometimes there are exceptions where TC 64 bit is installed as well.

Regards
Dalai

Hi, folks.

The number of participants is still far from being a representative sample, I guess.
Anyway. Clicked on

• TC 32 bit (32 bit Windows version) (32-bit Linux Mint, even though it is not mentioned in the poll)
• TC 64 bit (64 bit Windows version) (64-bit Linux Mint, even though it is not mentioned in the poll)

Cheers,
Karl

I always use 32-bit TC just because there is no need in 64-bit version of file manager. I really have no problems with 32-bit TC in 64-bit Windows.
The only real system where 64-bit version is reguired is 64-bit Windows PE which doesn't offer 32-bit subsystem, but this system is for troubleshooting only.

I always use 32-bit TC just because there is no need in 64-bit version of file manager. I really have no problems with 32-bit TC in 64-bit Windows.

Same for me.

Hm, why does using a 64-bit file-manager on a 64-bit operating system need any kind of justification at all?
No-one questions that using 32-bit software on 32-bit operating systems makes more sense than clinging to 16-bit dinosaurs.

MVV wrote:I always use 32-bit TC just because there is no need in 64-bit version of file manager...

If just for managing files: yes
But if using the typical TC stuff involving plug-ins: not necessarily


Main plug-ins requiring x64 for me: 7-Zip (7Zip Plugin 0.7.6.5a, I switched back from Total7zip for several reasons) and my own ZPAQ.
I sometimes want to create several archives in parallel using a large dictionary/block size and/or using more than one thread: almost impossible for TC 32-bit (and TC isn't flagged as Large Address Aware)

Some other plug-ins might be content plug-ins.
For my own plug-ins I use result caching. When doing it with large cache pools, TC 32-bit might quickly run out of large memory blocks, due to address space fragmentation.

And combining both things: I can easily crash TC by using: packing 7-Zip in background, doing some wdx plug-ins view with a large pool and using things like uLister for some office files on top of that (which also uses quite a share of memory for each Lister window) -> end of line for 32-bit TC.


So yes, there is need for TC x64, as I want to do more and more things in parallel, simply because it's possible due to Multi-Core CPUs and fast hard drives / SSDs. And I want to use those system resources without worrying about memory limits at all.

Es ist überraschend, dass TC 32 Bit immer noch produziert wird. Im Jahr 2003 erschien der Massenprozessor Athlon 64, der vielen Benutzern zur Verfügung stand. Verwenden die Menschen noch ältere Geräte?

i'm still using 32bit version on my win7 64 bit system...

This poll is from 2016. Maybe it's time to refresh it.
However, many people are using the 32-bit version due to the dependency on a specific plugin. The problem is that I don't think anyone will employ effort into doing a better and newer plugin when the old is working.
Maybe we should take a different perspective on this matter. Maybe it is time for us to try and map the most popular 32-bit plugins that are preventing people to move to 64-bit. I know totalcmd.net has a download counter. I don't know if it has the download dates involved so we could know which 32-bit plugins were downloaded more recently. If it doesn't, maybe we can run a survey to identify that.

Meanwhile I'd suggest we redo this survey with a different question:

If all the plugins you use were compatible with total commander 64-bit, would you migrate to total commander 64-bit?

We can also ask the original question to have a sense of how many people still use the 32-bit version.

I could create a google survey to capture this information.

With a list of plugins from totalcmd.net we could also create a survey to identify those plugins in need of updates/replacement.

I think it is an effort that reduces development effort for total commander and has a huge potential of bringing up new plugins. What do you think?

pplupo wrote: ↑2021-06-18, 18:54 UTC If all the plugins you use were compatible with total commander 64-bit, would you migrate to total commander 64-bit?

The answer is already known. Some people have to run and maintain legacy apps in old 32-bit Windows.

Usher wrote: ↑2021-06-18, 23:54 UTC

pplupo wrote: ↑2021-06-18, 18:54 UTC If all the plugins you use were compatible with total commander 64-bit, would you migrate to total commander 64-bit?

The answer is already known. Some people have to run and maintain legacy apps in old 32-bit Windows.

You are probably right.