Hi,
On 3/16/11 8:49 AM, Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
> so many new systems now come with 64-bit windows that only people
> running older hardware/software use 32-bit Windows anymore. At the
> least, MS should have provided an on-par version of IE9 that runs on
> 64-bit systems. This is dumb. I'm going to the new chrome unless FF
> gives me a good reason not to. I'm not even going to consider IE9 now,
> and I was looking forward to playing with it this weekend.
>
> On 3/16/2011 11:31 AM, FORC5 wrote:
>> I do :-[
>> actually both
>> fp
>>
>> At 08:22 AM 3/16/2011, Anthony Q. Martin Poked the stick with:
>>> Who runs 32-bit windows anymore?
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
Not one to normally support MS, but in this case everyone here is
missing the point.
The 64 Bit version is crippled due to MS feeling it won't give a good
user experience.
The 32 Bit version is the version MS expects users to use ON 64Bit WINDOWS.
If you look at IE 8 on Windows 7, it is a 32 bit application. MS is
even recommending the 32bit version of MS Office 2010 due to addon
compatibility issues.
The nice thing about the way AMD pushed to 64 bits is that you can run
32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS. I have been using large memory 64
bit machines with Windows 7 and the critical apps are 64 bit for memory
reasons (Autodesk software), but the need for office or IE to use more
then 3GB of memory really does not exist yet.
I am surprised MS even released a 64 bit version of IE 9.
Harry
