64-bit edition

[jonesy]

64-bit comptuting is becomming more and more prevalent - so when can we expect a 64-edition of Textpad? Would make editing large files **so** much easier...

[Drxenos]

64-bit comptuting is becomming more and more prevalent - so when can we expect a 64-edition of Textpad? Would make editing large files **so** much easier...

Whether or not a program is written to take advantage of a given processor's 64-bit instruction set has nothing to do with the "ease" or ability of it handling large files. The limit of file size is a factor of what file system and OS (and specific API) you are using. Having a program that is written in a 32-bit instruction set does not in and of itself limit you to files that fit in 2**32. The only advantage of a 64-bit processor is it can access a larger range of flat, physical memory so you can edit very large files without a lot of disk thrashing from the virtual memory swapping in and out.

DrX

[SteveH]

The only advantage of a 64-bit processor is it can access a larger range of flat, physical memory so you can edit very large files without a lot of disk thrashing from the virtual memory swapping in and out.

The other advantage is that in theory the same amount of data can be handled in half the time. The in theory part being that the data processed has to be the right sort of data for that kind of gain. These sort of tasks are the sort of things that will max out your CPU - e.g. video or audio processing rather than text editing.

[mrballistic]

whether or not i'll take advantage of my 64 bit mode in textpad (highly unlikely, even with log files), it still would be nice to have an x64 version so that i can get my shell extensions back.

[carlbray]

whether or not i'll take advantage of my 64 bit mode in textpad (highly unlikely, even with log files), it still would be nice to have an x64 version so that i can get my shell extensions back.

You can still run a 32 bit explore on 64 bit windows.

Drive_Letter:\windows\syswow64\explorer.exe /separate

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895561l
This also lists the other things that don't work in 64 bit explorer

[zridling]

The first text editor to hit 64-bit will make a lot of money. Trust me. Programmers don't see the need, but users do. Strongly consider working toward this goal.

[Drxenos]

The first text editor to hit 64-bit will make a lot of money. Trust me. Programmers don't see the need, but users do. Strongly consider working toward this goal.

It's not that programmers don't see the "need." It's just that programmers understand there is a difference between "being a 64-bit program" and working on a 64-bit OS. There is also a difference between being one of the above, and supporting 64-bit file sizes. Among the three, I'm not sure which you are advocating.

DrX

[brunodomingues]

I also want a 64-bit version. I have Windows Vista Ultimate 64 bit.

And I do not want to use Explorer 32 bit, that would be dumb when I have Explorer 64 bit which is faster. Even Flash doesn't have a 64 bit version so I can't see any flash animations in my Internet Explorer. And obviously I don't want to be using 2 internet explorers, 2 explorers, etc.

Is it hard to make Textpad 64 bit edition?
Let me know when it will be done.

[gan]

The first text editor to hit 64-bit will make a lot of money. Trust me. Programmers don't see the need, but users do. Strongly consider working toward this goal.

A 64-bit text editor already exists and been available for some time now. I used that text editor on 32-bit and 64-bit windows and basically i didn't notice any difference. That text editor is also able to open huge text files (like 200gb) and that goes for both editions so it's not like the 64-bit version can handle big files while the 32-bit version cannot. I'm talking about a 64-bit edition of the text editor and not 32-bit that works on a 64-bit OS.
Even if a 64-bit edition would be nice i think there are other more important features that should be prioritized like being able to open larger files, full unicode support, edit macros and stuff like that.

[Wodd]

As has been stated, the main difference between 32- and 64-bit operating systems is how much physical memory can be addressed. Unless I am mistaken, I think that I read that the 64-bit version of Windows Server 8 can address up to four terabytes of RAM (Random Access Memory) whereas the 32-bit version of the same operating system can address only up to two terabytes of RAM. I remembered what I read incorrectly. Here is what I was thinking of (Look for a table with memory allocations for the operating system.) It was broken out differently than I thought that I had remembered, however. I'm sorry for the misleading information (although the main information that I wanted to convey was correct). Although, I will admit that it is odd that the splash screen displays 32-bit edition, which would lead some to believe that a 64-bit edition is available. As far as I can see, that is not the case. For me, I am not sure if a 64-bit version would necessarily help, but clearly an increased memory allocation size would be helpful. I arrange music and use TextPad to copy the lines (rows) for later pasting into the program that I use to arrange the music. One time I tried having it copy all of the data that I needed for a song, but it was more than 11,000,000 lines. Clearly, the memory allocation size within the current version of TextPad is insufficiant to handle copying that many lines; I received an Out of memory error when attempting to copy the data. I think that it did successfully copy a line quantity in the 8,000,000s though. This leads me to believe that the maximum number of lines that it will copy may be 10,240,000. I initially used Microsoft Excel, but its 1,048,576-row capacity is cumbersome at times.

[ak47wong]

Times must be tough for spammers these days.