On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Preferring the 64-bit version would be a friendlier experience for novices in general nowadays. I've had to explain WOW64 file-system redirection [1] and registry redirection [2] too many times to people who are using 32-bit Python on 64-bit Windows. I've seen people waste over a day on this silly problem. They can't imagine that Windows is basically lying to them. [1]: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384187 [2]: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384232 _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
