On 26 January 2017 at 22:32, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > On 26.01.2017 23:09, Random832 wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017, at 11:21, Paul Moore wrote: >>> On a similar note, I always get caught out by the fact that the >>> Windows default download is the 32-bit version. Are we not yet at a >>> point where a sufficient majority of users have 64-bit machines, and >>> 32-bit should be seen as a "specialist" choice? >> >> I'm actually surprised it doesn't detect it, especially since it does >> detect Windows. >> >> (I bet fewer people have supported 32-bit windows versions than have >> Windows XP.) > > I think you have to differentiate a bit more between having a > 64-bit OS and running 64-bit applications. > > Many applications on Windows are still 32-bit applications and > unless you process large amounts of data, a 32-bit Python > system is well worth using. In some cases, it's even needed, > e.g. if you have to use an extension which links to a 32-bit > library.
I agree that there are use cases for a 32-bit Python. But for the *average* user, I'd argue in favour of a 64-bit build as the default download. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
