64-bit Discord

Комментарии

Комментариев: 48

  • 16 bits

    8 bits

    4 bits 

    2 bits 

    1 Bit 

    H a l f b i t 

    Q  u  a  r  t  e  r  b  i   t 




    -8
  • PriZii

    If any one has discord 64 bit dm me pls

    1
  • TechGuy

    Years later and still no 64 bit for windows? Come on y'all...

    2
  • Clip 2

    Make both version a 32 bits and a 64 bits version. It's better start thinking on 64 bits version because many systems are abandoning 32 bits OS with that in mind, the last step to abandon 32 bits will possibly be not run 32 bits programs what will make discord unusable. 64 bits version helps a lot persons with PCs like that so please hear our voices and create a 64 bits version.

    1
  • Racoocoo

    A 64-bit app needs to be released. Literally every development tool does it for them and by default. They just choose to go with 32-bit?? 

    Anyway, I saw someone say that React Native is only for iOS and Android. React Native Windows (and macOS) exists and is developed by Microsoft. Just wanted to put that out there.

    Peace.

    1
  • pchc_lx

    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ G I V E   x 6 4 

    3
  • Chris..

    32 bits full of bugs! All softwres go to 64 bits why no discord?

    1
  • k0l0r3k99

    Don't forget about ARM64! It's a big problem for devices like Surface Pro X and MacBook M1. On SPX you can use Discord app with emulation, which uses about x10 more CPU & power. Emulation is very slow.

    PS. There aren't MacOS 32-bit. Windows doesn't have 32-bit version of Windows 11, there is only ARM64 and AMD64.

    ARM64 feature request: https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360054793351-Discord-for-Windows-10-ARM64

    1
  • Cooper JX

    we are still waiting for a normal 64bits update discord... please for the love of god it will fix so much problems

    1
  • drttalk

    /bump

    0
  • Digital Cheese

    How is this app still 32bit?

    1
  • LucasSardant

    This thread really shows people have no idea about what they are talking about...

    1) Memory consumption of 64b programs is usually higher (although very slightly).

    2) Switching from 32b to 64b will not solve bugs.

    3) If Windows (note that I just talk about windows here) is 64 bits, it does not mean it can't run 32 bits program. No one is even thinking about abandoning 32 bits support (your processor still supports and has a 16 bits mode as of today).

    4) Although switching to 64b can improve performances, it is not always true. The code has to be optimized to take advantage of 64b. A lot of libs that discord uses might not take that advantage and even might not be available in 64b binaries.

    Is discord using more than 4GB of ram? No, so there is no need to extend the addressing space (which is what 64 does) to allow discord to use 17179869184GB (theoretically, as usually processor only allow less than 64 bits of addressing space, 52 is what is used on AMD64 arch).

    Now if we talk about PORTING discord to another ARCHITECTURE (like ARM) then I am all for it. But the debate on 32b vs 64b is useless.

    -1
  • taimarost

    There's no user problem that switching to 64 bits will solve (other than the psychological one: I want everything in 64 bits because!) so I guess the devs see no point in breaking the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" rule for no purpose.

    And yes, 32-bit versions of Windows 10 and 8.1 are still being supported by Microsoft.

    -2
  • aaronfranke

    The last two comments have no idea what they're talking about. There are downsides to 32-bit aside from being limited to 4 GB RAM.

    Going 64-bit makes it easier for non-x86 platforms to emulate Discord. If you want to run a 64-bit x86 app on a 64-bit ARM device, you need both 64-bit x86 and 64-bit ARM libraries. If you want to run a 32-bit x86 app, you need 32-bit x86 and 32-bit ARM libraries in addition to the host 64-bit ARM libraries. Some modern 64-bit ARM systems do not include the ability to run 32-bit ARM software on the hardware level, so that also needs emulating.

    If there are no 32-bit apps at all on the entire system, then you don't need 32-bit libraries installed. This would save lots of disk space. Consumer Windows versions currently don't have an option to exclude 32-bit userspace, but Linux distros can do this, and there is also Windows Nano Server. Mac already ships without 32-bit userspace libraries since version 10.15. iOS also has no 32-bit userspace, and it's the same story with newer Android devices. It's possible that Windows will eventually offer this option but it can't be done as long as apps like Discord continue to use legacy 32-bit support.

    For the host itself (not app support) you can't install 32-bit Windows 11 because it doesn't exist. You also can't install 32-bit builds of Windows 10 beyond 2020 because they stopped making installers for them, but existing installations can keep being updated.

    On Linux there are some situations where 32-bit is not an option. For example, graphics drivers targeted at professionals such as those for Nvidia Quadro cards are 64-bit only. Attempting to install a 32-bit package on such systems results in the package manager asking if you want to remove the graphics drivers. There are also some distros that are 64-bit only with no 32-bit userland, such as CentOS, and Ubuntu will be doing this too in the next decade.

    There's also the simple argument that you should target the native architecture for best performance. For the vast majority of Discord's customers on desktop this means x86_64 (aka 64-bit x86). Providing *only* builds targeting a non-native architecture is silly, even if x86_64 does a good job of running legacy 32-bit x86 apps.

    For more information check out this issue open in the Steam for Linux repo https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/3518

    2
  • LucasSardant

    I understand your points @aaronfranke. However my comments were targeting the replies to this thread, saying that switching would solve bugs.

    I also never said that using x86 would not ease things, just that maybe, for the devs, it was too much of a hassle compared to the benefits it brought.

    I also said that porting to another architecture was not the point of this thread, including emulation. Thing is, other architecture have their own product line (macOs, Android) or can rely on the web based version. Thus, I said that I can understand devs position at the moment.

    Concerning the switch to 64bits on windows, which is the point of this thread, there is no advantage whatsoever. However, I like your point on the fact that if all software switched to 64bits, Microsoft could ditch 32bits support. That is a good point but in now way it sounds realistic at the moment, considering the amount of applications (maintained or not) that still run on 32bits.

    Finally, for the last argument, same it is a good one, but again, we should consider the context. Are all the libs used by discord available on 64bits?

    If all libs are available, that the refactoring / rewriting of discord itself to take advantage of 64 bits is not too complex, if they are willing to maintain 32 and 64 bits versions (32 for those who still need it) then yeah, switching would be good.

    But again, it will not directly solve bugs or increase performances, as most people here think.

    Cheers :)

    2
  • Melchior

    is there any updates to the 64bit version of Discord app?

    its been 3 months since the last reply... lots of people would like to see a 64bit version including me..

    if its possible that is?

    0
  • redskull

    Melchior Why do you want a 64x of Discord? what do you think it will solve? because in reality...its nothing, Any problems you experience are because of bad / poor programming...Not because you are running a 32x binary on a 64x machine

    If you spent anytime reading at all...especially the last 3 comments everything you need to know is legit spelled out for you

    0

Войдите в службу, чтобы оставить комментарий.