If you install the 64bit version, it installs both the 32 bit and the 64 bit. In fact the 32 bit is the default.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Weeden > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:25 AM > To: hwg > Subject: [H] IE 9 is out and rocks, except if you are using 64-bit Windows > > Good review of IE9 over at Arstechnica: > > http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/reviews/2011/03/the-most-modern- > browser-there-is-internet-explorer-9-reviewed.ars > > Once again, MS screws up it's own product strategy: > > "It's also a little disappointing that the 64-bit version is less polished > than the 32-bit version. It can't be made the default browser, and it > doesn't include the new, high-performance scripting engine. Microsoft has > long argued that 64-bit browsing isn't necessary; most plug-ins are only > 32-bit, and so, the argument goes, browsing must be a 32-bit activity. This > is unfortunate. One, it leads to a certain chicken-and-egg problem: there's > little incentive to develop 64-bit plug-ins since nobody uses a 64-bit > browser due to the lack of plug-ins (though Adobe Flash 11 is likely to > include first-class 64-bit support, resolving one of the big stumbling > blocks). Making the 64-bit version first-class-the same features and > performance as the 32-bit version-and ensuring that, at least, Microsoft's > own plug-ins (such as Silverlight) were supported would go a long way > towards making 64-bit browsing viable. This is, after all, much the same > route as the company took with Office." > > > And there are good reasons why you would want to run the 64-bit version: > > "The reason that 64-bit is desirable is particularly because it offers the > potential to strengthen certain anti-hacking mechanisms. Address Space > Layout Randomization (ASLR) depends on the ability to change the in- > memory > layout of things like DLLs. In a 32-bit process there are only a limited > number of random locations that can be chosen. 32-bit processes are also > more vulnerable to anti-ASLR measures such as "heap spraying" (wherein a > large proportion of the browser's memory is filled with malicious code to > make it easier for an attacker to trick the browser into executing it). > 64-bit is by no means a panacea, but it does strengthen these protection > systems. For something that is as frequently attacked as a Web browser, this > kind of defense in depth is desirable." > > Unfortunately, if you're running 64-bit Windows, you can't install the > 32-bit version. You're stuck with the 64-bit version, which means no > scripting performance improvement and far fewer plugins. Which means I'm > sticking with Chrome. > > --- > Brian
