32 or 64

Discussion in 'Java' started by don, Oct 14, 2012.

  1. don

    don Guest

    For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
    bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them?
    Some programs require the 32 bit and some come in a version for each, like
    eclipse. When x64 Java first became available I began using it but found
    that some programs, like Vuze, required the 32 bit version.
    It seems odd that you would need 2 versions of the SDK and JVM installed on
    a machine. I¢d like to eliminate one of them but it seems that means the 32
    bit would be the one to use since it¢s probably the most compatible. And
    that seems like moving backwards.
    don, Oct 14, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. don

    Jeff Higgins Guest

    On 10/14/2012 11:58 AM, don wrote:
    > For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
    > bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them?
    > Some programs require the 32 bit and some come in a version for each, like
    > eclipse. When x64 Java first became available I began using it but found
    > that some programs, like Vuze, required the 32 bit version.
    > It seems odd that you would need 2 versions of the SDK and JVM installed on
    > a machine. I¢d like to eliminate one of them but it seems that means the 32
    > bit would be the one to use since it¢s probably the most compatible. And
    > that seems like moving backwards.

    Are all of your questions following this?
    <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/hotspotfaq-138619.html#64bit_description>
    Jeff Higgins, Oct 14, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. don

    don Guest

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:58:18 -0400, don wrote:

    > For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
    > bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them?
    > Some programs require the 32 bit and some come in a version for each, like
    > eclipse. When x64 Java first became available I began using it but found
    > that some programs, like Vuze, required the 32 bit version.
    > It seems odd that you would need 2 versions of the SDK and JVM installed on
    > a machine. I¢d like to eliminate one of them but it seems that means the 32
    > bit would be the one to use since it¢s probably the most compatible. And
    > that seems like moving backwards.


    One more thing occurred to me after my original post: Isn¢t it desirable
    that the transition from 32 to 64 bit Java should eventually replace and
    obsolete the 32 bit version?
    For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of all
    the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require users
    to have installed two versions of the Java VM?
    don, Oct 14, 2012
    #3
  4. don

    Eric Sosman Guest

    On 10/14/2012 1:53 PM, don wrote:
    > On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:58:18 -0400, don wrote:
    >
    >> For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
    >> bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them?
    >> Some programs require the 32 bit and some come in a version for each, like
    >> eclipse. When x64 Java first became available I began using it but found
    >> that some programs, like Vuze, required the 32 bit version.
    >> It seems odd that you would need 2 versions of the SDK and JVM installed on
    >> a machine. I¢d like to eliminate one of them but it seems that means the 32
    >> bit would be the one to use since it¢s probably the most compatible. And
    >> that seems like moving backwards.


    Java code will run just fine on either a 32-bit or 64-bit
    JVM -- or on a 23-bit or 107-bit JVM, should such beasts ever
    evolve. It's true that a memory-hungry Java application may
    need more space than a 32-bit JVM can provide and in that sense
    require a 64-bit (or "greater-than-34-bit") JVM. Going the other
    way, though, is no problem: If a piece of Java code can run in
    a 32-bit JVM, it can also run in a 64-bit JVM.

    Note that I said "Java code." When you step outside Java
    itself (with JNI, for example), configuration issues can become
    thornier. If your Java code calls upon a native library that
    exists only in an X-bit version, then you must run an X-bit JVM
    for the library's sake. I'm not acquainted with Vuze, but it
    seems likely something of that sort is at the root of your problem.
    If so, your complaint is not with Java but with the Born Vuzers:
    Your difficulties arise from their reluctance to write a pure Java
    application and/or to supply suitable versions of the non-Java bits.
    (Let me repeat: I am not acquainted with Vuze, and am only guessing
    about the reasons for its 32-bit chauvinism -- Still, I'm moderately
    confident in my guesswork.)

    > One more thing occurred to me after my original post: Isn¢t it desirable
    > that the transition from 32 to 64 bit Java should eventually replace and
    > obsolete the 32 bit version?


    For servers, I'd imagine 32-bit will fade out. Probably for
    desktops, too, albeit more slowly. For set-top boxes, E-wallets,
    toasters, alarm system components, ... No. (For browsers -- Well,
    who's daft enough to enable Java in an Internet browser?)

    > For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of all
    > the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require users
    > to have installed two versions of the Java VM?


    Again, I strongly suspect that the requirement originates
    outside of Java.

    --
    Eric Sosman
    d
    Eric Sosman, Oct 14, 2012
    #4
  5. don

    Lew Guest

    don wrote:
    > don wrote:
    >> For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
    >> bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them?


    Depends.

    I have both installed, but I have not used the 32-bit version on a 64-bit
    computer in years.

    >> Some programs require the 32 bit and some come in a version for each, like


    Which ones require the 32-bit version? No Java program, for sure.

    >> eclipse [sic]. When x64 Java first became available I began using it butfound
    >> that some programs, like Vuze, required the 32 bit version.


    And yet they include a 64-bit JAR for the SWT part, which contains native code.
    Hmm. Could you be mistaken?

    There's nothing in the Vuze documentation that limits it to using 32-bit Java.

    >> It seems odd that you would need 2 versions of the SDK and JVM installedon


    Especially since you don't.

    >> a machine. I’d like to eliminate one of them but it seems that means the 32
    >> bit would be the one to use since it’s probably the most compatible. And


    They're equally compatible. Java bytecode doesn't change for 64-bit vs. 32-bit.

    >> that seems like moving backwards.


    The operative word being "seems" since the premise is false.

    > One more thing occurred to me after my original post: Isn’t it desirable
    > that the transition from 32 to 64 bit Java should eventually replace and
    > obsolete the 32 bit version?


    No, since one doesn't render the other obsolete.

    > For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of all
    > the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require users
    > to have installed two versions of the Java VM?


    No, but then no one does.

    What other obstacles? Java is arguably the most widely accepted programming
    language right now. Certainly it's up there.

    Facts not in evidence, premise of the question not valid, there is no
    meaningful answer.

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Oct 14, 2012
    #5
  6. don

    don Guest

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:38:25 -0700 (PDT), Lew wrote:

    > don wrote:
    >> don wrote:
    >>> For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
    >>> bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them?

    >
    > Depends.
    >
    > I have both installed, but I have not used the 32-bit version on a 64-bit
    > computer in years.
    >
    >>> Some programs require the 32 bit and some come in a version for each, like

    >
    > Which ones require the 32-bit version? No Java program, for sure.
    >
    >>> eclipse [sic]. When x64 Java first became available I began using it but found
    >>> that some programs, like Vuze, required the 32 bit version.

    >
    > And yet they include a 64-bit JAR for the SWT part, which contains native code.
    > Hmm. Could you be mistaken?


    Perhaps more recent versions will run with 64 bit Java. As of two or so
    years ago they didn't

    > There's nothing in the Vuze documentation that limits it to using 32-bit Java.
    >
    >>> It seems odd that you would need 2 versions of the SDK and JVM installed on

    >
    > Especially since you don't.
    >
    >>> a machine. I¢d like to eliminate one of them but it seems that means the 32
    >>> bit would be the one to use since it¢s probably the most compatible. And

    >
    > They're equally compatible. Java bytecode doesn't change for 64-bit vs. 32-bit.
    >
    >>> that seems like moving backwards.

    >
    > The operative word being "seems" since the premise is false.
    >
    >> One more thing occurred to me after my original post: Isn¢t it desirable
    >> that the transition from 32 to 64 bit Java should eventually replace and
    >> obsolete the 32 bit version?

    >
    > No, since one doesn't render the other obsolete.
    >
    >> For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of all
    >> the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require users
    >> to have installed two versions of the Java VM?

    >
    > No, but then no one does.
    >
    > What other obstacles? Java is arguably the most widely accepted programming
    > language right now. Certainly it's up there.
    >
    > Facts not in evidence, premise of the question not valid, there is no
    > meaningful answer.


    Uh OK.

    I don't mean to split hairs but in my experience 32 bit versions of eclipse
    required a 32 bit JVM. Likewise Vuze. 32 bit Firefox requires a 32 bit JVM
    to run applets. I don't have much of a list because it consists only of
    those programs which I use or have used and my recollections of them.
    Certainly there have been enough of these for me to know that, of programs
    which require Java to run, some of them require 32 bit JVM's and some 64.
    Is this really a point of contention?
    don, Oct 14, 2012
    #6
  7. don

    Lew Guest

    don wrote:
    > I don't mean to split hairs but in my experience 32 bit versions of eclipse


    You have it backwards. The 32-bit version of Eclipse is for when you have the
    a 32-bit system. Why would you install it on a 64-bit system?

    Of course if you install a 32-bit program you will need to run 32-bit programs
    with it. But your complaint was that somehow Oracle was forcing you to do that.
    So far only you are forcing you to do that.

    > required a 32 bit JVM. Likewise Vuze. 32 bit Firefox requires a 32 bit JVM


    Ditto and ditto. Both of those come in 64-bit versions. In neither case is
    Oracle the one forcing you to install both 32- and 64-bit versions of things.

    It is your own choice to use 32-bit software outside of Java, then trying to
    use Java that works with them, that forces you to use 32-bit Java.

    > to run applets. I don't have much of a list because it consists only of
    > those programs which I use or have used and my recollections of them.


    But why didn't you use the 64-bit versions of these programs?

    > Certainly there have been enough of these for me to know that, of programs
    > which require Java to run, some of them require 32 bit JVM's and some 64.
    > Is this really a point of contention?


    If you make it one, it is.

    Your complaint is that it was Java's fault. It wasn't, It was your insistence
    on using 32-bit software that caused it. If that's the only software you use
    that hooks into Java, then you didn't need the 64-bit version. Either way, as
    far as Java's concerned you only need one version.

    By the way, the difference in these products between the 32- and 64-bit
    isn't in the Java, as you seem to think, it's in the native code.

    Yet another layer of why your complaint with Oracle or Java is misplaced.

    So to your original post:

    > Isn’t it desirable that the transition from 32 to 64 bit Java should
    > eventually replace and obsolete the 32 bit version?


    No. There is no such transition, so your question makes no sense.

    32-bit and 64-bit Java operate in different environments. If you mix the
    environments then you mix the needs, but that's not Java's fault. The two
    versions are not replacements for each other, but versions targeted for
    different platforms.

    Your question makes as much sense as asking if the Macintosh version of Java
    shouldn't replace the Windows version.

    > For instance, from the point of view of market acceptance, in light of all
    > the other obstacles that exist, does it really make sense to require users
    > to have installed two versions of the Java VM?


    No. So why did you require that?

    --
    Lew
    Lew, Oct 15, 2012
    #7
  8. don

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:58:18 -0400, don <> wrote,
    quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >For purposes of Java development is it better to have both the 32 and 64
    >bit versions of the SDK installed, or only one of them?


    you need a 64-bit JDK and a 32-bit JRE so that 32- bit browsers can
    run applets.
    --
    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com
    The iPhone 5 is a low end Rolex.
    Roedy Green, Oct 15, 2012
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page