I would like 64-bit edition of the WinBuilder

Posted 23 October 2010 - 01:15 PM

A lot of people are using 64-bit version of Windows but WinBuilder's 64-bit version is absent.
Many scripts use this code in the 64-bit host for 32-bit WinBuilder to be able call the 64-bit software by Lancelot.

System,FILEREDIRECT,OFF
System,FILEREDIRECT,ON

Many people still like WinBuilder projects ( Post #147 : http://www.boot-land...?...mp;st=140 by sgufa. ) but They face many problems because they use 64-bit host. ( post #148 : http://www.boot-land...?...mp;st=140 by JonF ).

Well I know, WinBuilder 's 64-bit version can be difficult to do but not impossible ! I will not make other comments on this issue because I'm not a programmer.

Best regards

• Back to top

Posted 23 October 2010 - 02:33 PM

This is indeed a worthy request and placed it on my work list.

Until February 2011 there are many changes lined up such as the forum restructuring that also need attention. Let's see how things work out, this also depends on the available time after January to get things going.

• Back to top

Posted 23 October 2010 - 02:52 PM

A lot of people are using 64-bit version of Windows but WinBuilder's 64-bit version is absent.

OK, I am a "programmer" And I'm not really familiar with what the issues are here. I tried looking at the post you referenced, and it seems that the issue is building a good X64 based ISO.

AFAIK, we should be able to do that on eiather version of the OS's if programmed "right". I don't think it is a matter of the bit-ness of the OS since that really affects drivers and other kernel level things. Yes, some other things are different (like the location of the programs directories, etc., but for the most part, the bitness of the kernel shouldn't affect the processing of a script - unless there are some funny issues with "long" variables)...

So, being "ignorant" of the reall issues and is the root cause the bitness of the OS that is running the application or the way the application fits into the OS, can someone educate me more on the specific things that would need to be changed in the core winbuilder tool to make it work - i.e. what things in the tool are broken on X64 using the current executable?

Thanks
Scott

p.s. I agree with Nuno, fixing some of the other issues may be more important at this point in time...

• Back to top

Posted 23 October 2010 - 03:37 PM

Yes, there will be time for a good brush up on WinBuilder to keep up to speed and ready for the next decade.

I guess 5 years ago few people were expecting such growth in number of users and such scale in complexity of projects. Now things are different as we have a better perspective on what needs to be done.

However, before there was also more quality time to focus exclusively on WinBuilder. Right now the forum is also expanding so quickly that we need to make some changes to allow enough room for other projects to also grow with proper conditions.

If it helps, I'm also running winbuilder exclusively on x64 machines and a version that takes advantages of the new platform would be of my interest to see available.

Until then, (like sbaeder mentions) we can address and workaround some of the most annoying issues.

• Back to top

Posted 21 November 2010 - 07:28 PM

AFAIK, we should be able to do that on eiather version of the OS's if programmed "right". I don't think it is a matter of the bit-ness of the OS since that really affects drivers and other kernel level things. Yes, some other things are different (like the location of the programs directories, etc., but for the most part, the bitness of the kernel shouldn't affect the processing of a script - unless there are some funny issues with "long" variables)...

I think that this is going into the direction which you have in mind:
http://www.boot-land...?...st&p=114422

First step. When we compare with the time nativeEx_Core based projects needed to get their current power: Please give me some (Latin) months.

Peter

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:49 AM

Two years later, hello again my friends

I know your time is limited. In the meantime, our group has grown much more. I joined the bandwagon of using a 64-bit operating system. As far as I know the Delphi now supports 64-bit. If the WinBuilder compiled by the delphi, it cannot be re-compiled as 64-bit ? Is it wrong to be an expectation in this regard ? I'm sorry to ask this question again, because I'm not a programmer. Best regards

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:57 AM

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:14 AM

Hmm. Shall we do a fund-raising campaign for this ? If you accept, I can give 100 euro for this campaign to start. Best regards

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 12:32 PM

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 02:27 PM

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 02:36 PM

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 03:05 PM

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 04:58 PM

Can I have the list of advantages of a future 64 bit version of the actual builder ?

How much faster will it be?

How much havoc will it create with win32 only, win64 only or both WIn32/Win64 compatible .scripts? (and corresponding testing and supporting)
(please note how the question is not IF it will create havoc, only about an estimate of the quantity of it that it will create)

Some past (only loosely related) reference:
http://reboot.pro/16..._25#entry151030


Wonko

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:02 PM

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:04 PM

It looks like the Starter Edition is physically identical with the Professional Edition, but for non-commercial use only.
It is available for 199 €.
The non-commercial use should be applicable for the Winbuilder development.

Peter

I would like to draw your attention to something. It can compile 32-bit only.

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:09 PM

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:09 PM

Oops!

Peter


Sorry, I am working in vacation with a freshly bought toy (android tablet) and I am not yet very familar with all the copy / paste / quote / delete functions.

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:28 PM

I have not tried yet, but it like useful. Best regards

Embarcadero RAD Studio XE3 Architect Multilingual

English/French/German/Japanese

Web Installer (53 MB): http://altd.embarcad...xe3_win_esd.zip

Full DVD ISO (3.12 GB): http://altd.embarcad...der_xe3_win.iso

Trial-Serial: MAFA-A3D7PD-FJBBAE-FACN

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:07 PM

http://www.techsuppo...t-explained.htm
http://en.wikipedia....4-bit_computing
http://www.tech-faq....t-software.html

Comeon, Max , that is the usual blabbering , I would like to have some first-hand opinions/experiences/reports.


Wonko

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:50 PM

• Back to top

Posted 16 September 2012 - 08:42 PM

Would not you like to be a 64-bit version of the WinBuilder ? (think... think.. think. ding!)
The 64-bit programs isn't actually very useful ?
The these programs do not have to nothing advantage ?

So;

You say what you say, I think the WinBuilder should have a 64-bit version. Best regards

• Back to top

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:23 AM

You say what you say, I think the WinBuilder should have a 64-bit version. Best regards

Sure, that is a wish, and like any wish, it *needs* not in itself a proper justification .

The point was simply that this particular wish (perfectly respectable like any personal opinion or wish) has NO valid, objective reason backing it.

On the other hand, while I presume that making a "sheer" x64 version of the builder (with the proper compiler or whatever) would most probably be relatively easy for Peter, there are IMHO a number of drawbacks as it will likely create a nightmare of compatible vs. incompatible .scripts.
As I see it the actual advantage of Winbuilder is not (with all due respect to all the work that Nuno and Peter put into it) in the builder itself, but rather in the projects and .scripts that were created (which ALREADY anyway suffer from cross incompatibilities) and introducing a 64 bit version of it is likely to aggravate the problems.
But, please correct me if I am wrong, there is no issue whatever in using a 32 bit builder to produce a x64 build, so the ONLY difference would be some (possibly) SLOWER building times, while being capable of accessing more memory (that won't be used).

@sbaeder
Do read the given link, the memory limitation in 32 bit is only "by design" and can be worked around rather easily.


Wonko

• Back to top

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:23 AM

• Back to top

Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:08 PM

• Back to top

Posted 17 September 2012 - 01:33 PM

Yes, it is probably some used component (or the current compiler) which is not Unicode compatible, but Unicode compatibility has been available in apps long before 64 bit existed, and AFAIK there is no issue whatever in 32 bit Unicode apps.


Wonko

• Back to top