Comments on: Poll about the future of WinDirStat

By: foofiggle

foofiggle — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:14:56 +0000

It would be great to have a 64bit version of WinDirStat.

We occasionally would like to run it against a very very large file system and the current 32bit one crashes (guessing it runs out of memory)…

By: Oliver

Oliver — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:20:18 +0000

WDS runs on Windows 7 and on Vista as well as on x64 Windows versions. It just doesn’t support some obscure new features and in case of x64 Windows it runs in WOW64 mode (whose performance is nearly the same as for native x64 applications).

But the plan now is to drop 9x versions (i.e. ANSI versions) and concentrate on Unicode and NT versions with x86 or x64 processor. Itanium is not planned (specifically because I have no way of checking it!).

By: Sb

Sb — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:41:44 +0000

Yes please.

This would be nice to have support for x64 Vista and the new Win 7.

Thanks.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:52:03 +0000

Yes, someone is still reading it

The point is, though, that currently we have 2 different “editions”. One with full Unicode capabilities and one with ANSI only. ANSI is also always slower, because all the ANSI APIs on Windows NT and later convert the string to Unicode anyway (well, as much as a mapping is possible). 64bit and ANSI is pointless. But should we drop ANSI ultimately (not necessarily the option to get back to it, but cease to develop that branch, so to speak - or should we continue ANSI + Unicode 32bit + Unicode 64bit.

BTW: The performance impact on WOW64 programs is minimal. Has to do with how the stuff is passed to the kernel. And depending on what you consider low-level, I cannot really see what information is hidden from WDS that would be interesting for this kind of application

By: Kakes

Kakes — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:45:00 +0000

Is anyone still reading this ?

64 bit is worthwhile. New machines are being sold and supported exclusively on 64 bit Vista (e.g. Dell Studio XPS with Core i7). There are issues with 32 bit apps accessing low level information - besides, performance is impared with 32 bit applications…

By: jimmy

jimmy — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:12:20 +0000

It would also be great to be able to save out reports. Right now I end up taking a screen cap of as much of the window as I can.

By: fowl

fowl — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:18:27 +0000

Oh if it’s faster, I’m all for it!

(need an excuse to load a 64-bit on this box anyway… :P)

By: Oliver

Oliver — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:24:15 +0000

Good point, it might be additional hassle indeed. But I’ll decide after actually checking the performance differences. I can imagine that particular operations would be faster natively.

By: fowl

fowl — Tue, 20 May 2008 10:15:14 +0000

I don’t see the point of a x64 release, there are api’s to allow 32bit apps to see an unvirtulised view of the filesystem.

A 64bit build seems an unnecessary complication for both you and the potential downloader.

Oh and awesome app btw!

Looking forward to see how you deal with the hardlink problem.

By: jimmy

jimmy — Thu, 08 May 2008 01:28:00 +0000

You could do a fileid lookup, those that are under winsxs with a linkcount > 1 could have other links hidden.
If only they’d hardlinked the “real” copy and junctioned the others it would be a bit easier. AV/backup apps would’ve hit issues tho…

Great app - glad to see you’re continuing to refine it. Thx much.