How many of you still actively develop 32 bit versions of your programs?

[Gizmo]

Hi

I have a program that I compile as 32-bit. It doesn't need the 64-bit functionality particularly and by compiling as 32-bit I ensure all users can run it (on Linux, I do provide both 32 and 64 bit versions to prevent dependancy problems). But a user recently a reported a bug to me that highlighted an issue for my program being compiled as a 32-bit exe when run on 64 bit OSes. It's a rare problem but it relates to files in the Windows\System32 folder (here is more details if you're interested : http://sourceforge.net/p/quickhash/tickets/17/)

It made me wonder whether I may as well simply stop creating a 32-bit version all together. I sat and thought about how many 32 bit users there are these days. I did some Googling and read that 98% of current OSes run 64-bit. I don't know how accurate that is, but given that most (nearly all) new computers these days ship with 64-bit, and many folks have used 64 bit for the last few years, it wouldn't surprise me.

My question is how many of you still actively develop 32 bit versions of your programs?

[marcov]

I still use 32-bit for everything, at work, and at home.

There are two exceptions, both at work. One is a service (that has to run on a 64-bit system), one is an application on the drawing table only that will need really a lot of memory access.

[Graeme]

Seeing that FPC makes it so easy, I still produce 32-bit and 64-bit binaries of all my applications. That way I cover all bases. My development workstation is 64-bit though, but I have many development VM's that are 32-bit too.

As MarcoV said, when it comes to service applications or shell extensions under Windows, then you must produce binaries for the specific Windows bit size. But other than that, most people seem pretty happy running 32-bit Windows applications on 64-bit Windows.

Under Linux and FreeBSD, it seems most people prefer to run a binary that matches their OS.

[dogriz]

Linux machines 64-bit only (except RaspberryPi)
Windows machines 32-bit only

[Eugene Loza]

My computer at work is still i386 (Debian Jessie 32bit)
And yes, under Windows 64 bit - I compile 32 bit (no need for greater memory support yet).

[JD]

I also develop 32 bit versions of my programs because some of my users still use 32 bit Windows. However, my development machines are all 64 bit. I've been thinking of adding 64 bit versions but I haven't seen the absolute need to do so.

JD

[Leledumbo]

I only develop on 64-bit, but always provided 32-bit binaries. I ensure my code will work on both platforms.

[balazsszekely]

Same here, mostly 32 bit apps.  WoW is doing a great job, no need to switch yet. In most cases the benefits would be infinitesimal anyway.

[garlar27]

Mostly 32 bits, 64 bits for services and modules on servers.

[ArtLogi]

As a regular computer user I wonder what are the benefits of the 64-bit applications anyway, only things I can imagine are design/dev softwares, video editing and use, Heavy image softwares, top of the line games.

Yes I run 64-bit system with over 4Gb of ram (which go to OS anyway  ), but I don't know if there is any real reason ... I doubt there is none. Autocad R13, did run just fine and did do pretty much same tasks back in the P1 what ACAD16 do and Word is doing same things as it did do somewhere back in 2002.. Both are only suffering from poor modern UI.

My old mother would still be satisfied email and news reader with 16-bit Windows 3.11 and happy writer with WordPerfect 5.1 runnning some age old 486 if those would still be supported and site design would still be done with some mindset as back then.

Even if I'm somekind of nerd myself I really do not see any benefits most of these hype things, what they seem to add is clutter, dirt and my workload learning to do the same shit with different creaming.

[jack616]

A late comment but since it came up here just yesterday
I re-installed a game machine yesterday on win7-64 and added far cry (1)
Just for the hell of it I ran the benchmark then installed its 64 bit upgrade
and did the same.
There was no frame rate difference whatsoever on the game.

On the other hand I normally compile to 64bit for myself but all other appropriate applications
I do come in 32 and 64 bit flavours on both windoze and linux.
Not for any reason I know of - just to avoid things I don't know about.

[linuxfan]

32 bit machines seem to me more equilibrated.
64 bits are a waste of memory in many (not all) cases; probably 90% of programs run slightly better in 32 bits than in 64 bits version. And furthermore, a 32 bit program runs everywhere. So I stick to 32 bits as much as I can.

But soon all the machines and all the software will be 64 bits. Ok, the transition will be very smooth.

[LacaK]

In work my development machine is 64 bit Windows, but target is 32 bit because we still have old Windows XP and 7 32 bit

[zeljko]

Still heavy deploying 32bit since many users have 32bit OS (linux/windows), but all new users gets 64bit ... so 32bit is still pretty important for me.

[dirkmswt]

I develop for both,it works on both and it gives User where don't seit to new OS fast and XP is one oft the most used under Windows and for some Programms you need no 64 Bit,32Bit need less Raum an Processor Power and for a use of a Notebook need defact less Power.If you want 3D and Calculation to much higher Values its best at 64Bit but for a App which calculates with normal Values and dös Print etc its not the best to sell on one Version.I develop for some Platform with 32 and 64 Solutions for Companys since more than 20 Years ago and for Carbon which works full its only 32Bit but its a fine old and works fine this Time and Cocoa is unstable but Carbon can import some nice things from