On 3/16/11 8:59 AM, Brian Weeden wrote:
> You can't install the 32-bit version of IE9 on 64-bit Windows. At
> least, I couldn't when I tried it this morning.
>
>
Very odd. I will have to look into this more tonight.
Harry
> ---
> Brian
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Harry McGregor <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
