Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the hell most Microsoft programs are still 32-bit by default?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 11 posts

Re: Why the hell most Microsoft programs are still 32-bit by default?

#4

Post by berbec »

TeddyBear060 wrote: post #3
moonbug wrote: post #2

Yes.

Ok, but is it so complicated to test the computer arch in order to install the correct flavour?

100% of 64-bit computers run 32-bit programs. The vast majority of users never know or care what arch is installed. The only time most people care about bit-ness (word?) is if they are 64-bit trying to run an ancient 16-bit program.

This isn't VHS vs Bluray; it's much harder to explain why there is an advantage when it can't be seen. The 64 not version isn't 35% faster, or has dozens of new features. It's mainly just compiled differently, and it is hard to explain memory limits and instruction sets to people.

Re: Why the hell most Microsoft programs are still 32-bit by default?

#5

Post by technion »

Given you mentioned Steam, Kerbal Space Program is a great example here. They initially released a 64-bit edition due to community pressure. It was full of bugs and crashed a lot, and all they got were complaints about a lack of QA. There were mod authors who actually introduced checks and had their mods refuse to run on a 64 bit build, because they didn't want their mods running on unreliable systems.

Re: Why the hell most Microsoft programs are still 32-bit by default?

#6

Post by TeddyBear060 »

technion wrote: post #5

Given you mentioned Steam, Kerbal Space Program is a great example here. They initially released a 64-bit edition due to community pressure. It was full of bugs and crashed a lot, and all they got were complaints about a lack of QA. There were mod authors who actually introduced checks and had their mods refuse to run on a 64 bit build, because they didn't want their mods running on unreliable systems.

Ok. But what do you mean, that 64-bits programs are more buggy that 32-bits ones ? Or that company/developers are not yet confortable with releasing 64-bits versions of a program ? Or something else :-)

Re: Why the hell most Microsoft programs are still 32-bit by default?

#7

Post by TeddyBear060 »

berbec wrote: post #4
TeddyBear060 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but is it so complicated to test the computer arch in order to install the correct flavour?

100% of 64-bit computers run 32-bit programs. The vast majority of users never know or care what arch is installed. The only time most people care about bit-ness (word?) is if they are 64-bit trying to run an ancient 16-bit program. This isn't VHS vs Bluray; it's much harder to explain why there is an advantage when it can't be seen. The 64 not version isn't 35% faster, or has dozens of new features. It's mainly just…

Totally agree with the first part.

But, does a program can use more than 4GB of RAM if it's compiled in 32-bit and executed into a 64-bit environnement (with more than 4GB of memory)?

I imagine that the answer is between yes and no.

I imagine that you, as developer, can choose between limiting your program not to use more than 4GB or let the system (host) do the memory re-mapping job for you...

But what about reliability in this case?

Re: Why the hell most Microsoft programs are still 32-bit by default?

#9

Post by TeddyBear060 »

chrisbennet wrote: post #8

At least with Visual Studio, it’s 32bit for performance reasons (32bit is faster). https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/01/VS-64-bit

Thanks for sharing this interesting reading.

It makes sense.

> [...] most of the time, staying with 32-bit and reducing the amount of memory being consumed will have a much larger impact for both the application and the operating systems as a whole.

Re: Why the hell most Microsoft programs are still 32-bit by default?

#10

Post by technion »

TeddyBear060 wrote: post #6
technion wrote: post #5

Given you mentioned Steam, Kerbal Space Program is a great example here. They initially released a 64-bit edition due to community pressure. It was full of bugs and crashed a lot, and all they got were complaints about a lack of QA. There were mod authors who actually introduced checks and had their mods refuse to run on a 64 bit build, because they didn't want their mods running on unreliable systems.

Ok. But what do you mean, that 64-bits programs are more buggy that 32-bits ones ? Or that company/developers are not yet confortable with releasing 64-bits versions of a program ? Or something else :-)

I just mean there is apparently quite a bit of room for bugs beyond "getting it to compile", and the QA and testing takes time and money.
Post reply on HN