On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 02:09:58 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 08:39:45PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >I think it's easier to present the choice on the web page rather than > >in setup. The name of the tool, setup64, is a wonderful clue as to > >what this version installs. > > It's likely easier for a programmer to pepper setup.exe with rote > changes for x86_64 than to add logic to detect the OS and offer the user > choices. I don't think it can be argued that it's easier for the user > since, if setup.exe is modified, they will still be presented with the a > similar choice but they will know exactly what their options are. > > I think it is very possible that some users will not know if they are > running a 64-bit OS or not. I, myself, have been confused on both Linux > and Windows when I had a 32-bit OS installed but thought I was running > 64-bit.
IIUC, this would mean: 1) a new page just past the intro, to select 32- or 64-bit if both are available, which would set a boolean. 2) the name of .bz2/.ini would depend on said boolean. 3) all calls to Reg*KeyEx() would need REG_WOW64_*KEY flags depending on said boolean. 4) a command-line option to bypass the bitness selection page. Am I missing anything? > >Second, you're missing an important point: WOW64 has become an optional > >component since Windows 2012. Requiring to have WOW64 installed just > >because we neglected to port the installer as well, is lame. At the > >very least we should provide a 64 bit installer as well, even if it's > >not used by default. > > I was vaguely aware of this but I don't believe that it is common. I > searched for "cygwin wow64 missing" and didn't see anything. OTOH Windows Server 2012 is still fairly new. > If we start to see a number of people complaining then I would be > certainly be convinced that a 64-bit setup.exe is needed. I don't think > we have to limit ourselves out of the gate for this, in my opinion, > corner case. > > >>Fifth objection: "This is a lot of work!!! It's easier to just port > >>setup.exe to 64-bit!!!" > >> > >>Response: That's debatable. > > > >Yaakov already ported setup to 64 bit. Only the autoload stuff is > >missing and that can simply be deleted anyway. > > Ok, I thought there were more patches coming. If the #ifdef x86_64's in > Yaakov's code are actually not going to be there because of legacy going > away then those points are invalid. So OK to apply just the type-safety parts (install.cc, regex/regcomp.c, and setup.exe.manifest)? > Btw, Yaakov, IsWindowsNT in the code should be completely eliminated. Yes, I'm already on it. Yaakov
