Jump to content











Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

I would like 64-bit edition of the WinBuilder


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
27 replies to this topic

#1 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

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 :dubbio:

#2 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10544 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

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.

:dubbio:

#3 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

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" :dubbio: 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...

#4 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10544 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

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. :dubbio:

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.

#5 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

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 :hi:

#6 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

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 :hi:

#7 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 16 September 2012 - 10:57 AM

The issue is, that the developer has to spend more than 1000 € for the 64 bit Delphi compiler.

Peter

#8 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

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 :hi:

#9 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 16 September 2012 - 12:32 PM

Delphi XE3 Product Editions
http://www.embarcade...roduct-editions

I think we can buy it. Because it is only €899.00. (Compilers Windows (32-bit and 64-bit) and Mac OS X And Earlier version access Get licenses and downloads for earlier versions Delphi XE2, XE, 2010, 2009, 2007 and Delphi 7)

https://store.embarc.../?id=65kZ7x8RJ4

#10 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 16 September 2012 - 02:27 PM

I think also with the latest compilers you will also get unicode support so that unicode scripts could potentially be supported.

#11 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 16 September 2012 - 02:36 PM

$899 is a lot of money to spend on a compiler. Maybe if you could get a 100 people to contribute it may be realistic to ask for donations. However I would suspect you will get nowhere near a 100 people.

#12 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 16 September 2012 - 03:05 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

#13 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 14778 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 16 September 2012 - 04:58 PM

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

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

:cheers:
Wonko

#14 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:02 PM

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


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

#15 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

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. :suda:

#16 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:09 PM

However I would suspect you will get nowhere near a 100 people.


Come on, we can do many things. Only need to take a step to do something.

#17 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:09 PM

Oops!

Peter

:mega_shok:
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.

#18 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:28 PM

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

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

#19 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 14778 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

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 :w00t:, I would like to have some first-hand opinions/experiences/reports.

:cheers:
Wonko

#20 sbaeder

sbaeder

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1338 posts
  • Location:usa - massachusettes
  •  
    United States

Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:50 PM

Having come from the comercial side, where we made "compilers" for hardware design language (Verilog and VHDL), there is only one reason to go to a 64 bit version of an executable, and that is memory constraints. If you have a data structure that is too large for a 32 bit pointer, then you need to store it as a 64 bit pointer. But that (in general) makes it slower, since it has to make all the pointers 64 bit, even if you don't need the extra address space, which makes the amount in the cache "smaller" (less pointers), and 2x the amount of data to fetch from memory, etc.


For the OS, this makes sense, since it needs to juggle a lot of tasks, and now days, many machines have more than the 4 GB of memory - and yes, I know you can't even really use all of that on a 32 bit OS, since the OS needs address space for other things like IO...

But, for a tool like WinBuilder, while we may buidl a few items that need "long" data, I seriously doubt that we need 64 bit pointers to that data structure or that we would see any "real" benefit from a "64 bit" version. Even Microsoft, which does offer a 64 bit version of office doesn't support it for a lot of things like plug-ins, and has anyone really seen any benefit at all from a 64 bit browser over the 32 bit version? I know that there can be some speedups based on the more intelligent compiler packing an more registers, etc. And it doesn't seem like there are any "new" benchmarks with current compilers, especially the Pascal ones...

Now if there is a demo, and Peter wants to play around with it - fine. But, I agree with Wonko here...To make it worthwhile to create (and maintain a second version, since there will still be people wanting to run it on older XP systems where 32 bit was the norm), we should expect a substantial "payback" on that effort.

#21 Max_Real Qnx

Max_Real Qnx

    Gold Member

  • Patrician
  • 1382 posts
  • Location:Istanbul
  • Interests:To be or not to be that is the question.
  •  
    Turkey

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 :hi:

#22 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 14778 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

Posted 17 September 2012 - 09:23 AM

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

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.

:cheers:
Wonko

#23 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 17 September 2012 - 10:23 AM

The main (and only?) advantage I see in a 64bit WB: It can handle unicode texts in ini files and registry.
That would not enhance existing scripts and projects, but it would allow development of unicode scripts.
On the other hand there are a lot of questions:

What about a 64 bit syntax highlighter and other third party components?
It is not only a simple "Recompile existing project".

I would enjoy to do it, but more as a challenge than to produce a practically more usefull new WB.

Peter

#24 paraglider

paraglider

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1729 posts
  • Location:NC,USA
  •  
    United States

Posted 17 September 2012 - 12:08 PM

Its never as simple as just recompile. Yes if you don't have the source for third party components you will need 64 bit versions of them. Don't think you need to go to 64 bit to get unicode support.

I agree with you - don't see the need for a 64 bit version. If producing a 32 bit pe then you will have the same registry redirection issues as you currently get with a 64 bit PE on a 32 bit winbuilder. As scripts for 64 bit PE are currently coded for 32 bit winbuilder then they are unlikely to work unchanged on a 64 bit winbuilder. By have a 64 bit winbuilder you have just doubled the combinations that have to be tested by a script builder.

#25 Wonko the Sane

Wonko the Sane

    The Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 14778 posts
  • Location:The Outside of the Asylum (gate is closed)
  •  
    Italy

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.

:cheers:
Wonko




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users