There's something to that. Personally, I usually select 32-bit installers simply because my free version of Revo Uninstaller doesn't list 64-bit applications (the paid-for version does). Some websites will default to 64-bit downloads if you are running a 64-bit OS. One reason that vendors may prefer you to select 32-bit software is that the downloads tend to be smaller and will therefore use less bandwidth. Also, downloading 32-bit and
64-bit versions will not please the bean-counters.
In any case, 64-bit software really needs to be fine-tuned to the hardware that it is running on to get maximum performance*
. This ups the development and support costs and may be one reason why downloads are larger, since several versions of 64-bit code will need to be provided for the various flavours of 64-bit microprocessors. It may also explain why massive patches are often required for 64-bit games.
* It may also explain why some vendors choose to ship only 32-bit software. Those that provide 64-bit versions may only do so to stop 64-bit enthusiasts moaning. There may well be no processor-specific optimisations in the 64-bit code at all. Even worse, the compiler may be run in "maximum compatibility" mode. Why bother?
Eventually, we will be given no choice (or it will be between 64-bit and 128-bit). Until then, 32-bit code remains a reasonable choice for software developers (at least, in the Windows environment).
[Final] edit: I don't expect Windows to go 128-bit. Ever. 64-bit's yer lot, folks. Microsoft may stomp on the 32-bit version, however.
"No need to run and hide. It's a wonderful, wonderful life."
Colin Vearncombe, 1962-2016
Edited by micksharpe (Mon 01-Feb-16 15:50:17)