Let's take this step by step and forget the technical arguments. Microsoft's object is to make money from its target market, the casual user. Enthusiasts here want to load up their systems with memory consuming add-ons aren't that market.If Microsoft releases a 32-bit version it can sell it to 32-bit and 64-bit users. Remember than the 32-bit version on a 64-bit system offer 4 GB of virtual memory - twice that available on 32-bit systems. I suggest that could be enough for the majority of casuals user and that only a very small number of enthusiasts would want more. This way Microsoft would, I guess, satisfy at least 90% of the market.On the other hand if it releases a 64-bit version only then its sales are limited to 64-bit users who are, at the moment, less than 50% of Windows users just to satisfy the very small number of enthusiasts while eeffectively halving its market ,Surely commercially that just doesn't make sense.

Yes but you are forgetting that they are going to make a big fuss about the marketplace (addon store) with Flight, what's the point of making all these clueless new users aware of all these extras if it is going to make 32bit OS users ultimately have an unstable experience.

Yes but you are forgetting that they are going to make a big fuss about the marketplace (addon store) with Flight, what's the point of making all these clueless new users aware of all these extras if it is going to make 32bit OS users ultimately have an unstable experience.

Are you really saying saying that 32-bit users shouldn't have any experience of Flight at all?

Anyway, I suspect Microsoft has already made the 64/32bit decision .

I think that maybe true but it wouldn't be impossible to move from a 32bit implementation to a 64bit one, especially if it's coded with 64bit in mind. At the end of the day it's just 32bit types and memory allocation which needs upgrading and even these are possible to a. code around or b. leave in a 32bit state to run in a 64bit application. On top of that it's a compiler directive - really not a big deal. If Microsoft coding practices are uptodate (which of course they are!) then the changes would be minimal.I think Mike T has put the final nail in the coffin for an exclusive 32bit version of Flight when he's stated that Windows PC's already have a majority share of 64bit Windows Operating Systems which is incredible in itself. Lets be honest people you'd do well to buy a new PC these days with less that 4 GB's of memory and Windows Vista 32bit installed. Unless a manufactor was getting rid of old stock, maybe if this was a PS3 or a XBOX360 port it'll be 32bit only, but no it's a PC exclusive. "In 2 years time, Windows 7 64bit will be the Daddy to run any new game not just MS Flight."If Microsoft were delivering Flight today it would probably be available in 32bit but they aren't delivering today are they, far from it. So I would be amazed if Flight didn't support a 64bit version when it's released. Cheers,Dave.

Are you really saying saying that 32-bit users shouldn't have any experience of Flight at all?

No I'm not saying that, but how about, just dont let them install any complex addons, leave that for 64bit OS users :)

No I'm not saying that, but how about, just dont let them install any complex addons, leave that for 64bit OS users :)

That's a novel USP! Or how about requiring complex add-ons to run outside the Flight process as recommended by the SDK? That way they wouldn't add the Flight's virtual memory.

Your still going to need more than 4Gb of RAM (especially with the amount of RAM GPU's have on them these days) even if you run outside of process, ergo you would be better off with 64bit OS, otherwise you are going to limit the number of addons you can run at the same time. Clearly I'm not going to convince you that 32bit is the past and that its holding everyone back in the industry, so I'll leave it at that.

So yes, there has been a huge increase in 64-bit adoption because of the enormous success of Windows 7 and corporate adoption of Windows 2008 R2 which is based on W7 code.  The survey is meaningless on many levels because on top of it all, it doesn't take into account that the vast majority of people that use or have used FSX don't even know about Avsim!  Will consumer adoption of 64-bit operating systems occur in time for the relese of Flight? No.  Will FLIGHT be done in two versions? No.

Mike,you hurt my brain.  This is a quote from you on the other 64bit thread".......So, I can 100% guarantee you that FLIGHT will be a 32-bit application. The only 64-bit applications that MS makes are server apps such as Exchange Server 2010, Sharepoint Server, etc which need access to huge amounts of memory. Even though full adoption of 64-bit architecture would benefit the consumer market, it is still a long way to go until a 64-bit game will be developed due to low adoption of 64-bit OS's."    :(

The latest (January to April 2011) figures I can find suggest the following split of Windows operating systems worldwide are: 35.4 % for Win 7 16.9 % for Vista48.3% for XP(The percentage are based on all all operating systems, including non-Microsoft ones. The have to be factored up to make their sum 100% to give them as percentages of Microsoft operating systems.)http://en.wikipedia....erating_systemsIn 2010 the split between types of operating systems were: 64-bit 46% 32-bit 54% for Win 764-bit 11% 32- bit 89% fgor Vista 64-bit <1% 32-bit >99% for XPhttp://www.thewindow...users-in-number(If anyone has any other figures I'd like to see them.)On the basis that it's unlikely that there's been a significant switch from 32 bit to 64 bit on Vista or XP in the last year, and making the extreme assumption that 100% of Win 7 operating systems are now 64 bit, the following table suggests that at least 65% of PCs are still using 32 bit and less than 35% are using 64 bit. Microsoft can't just ignore that market.

Exactly. And here's my forecast for Windows 8 (already at Milestone 3):64-bit 89% 32-bit 11% for Win 8 64-bit 46% 32-bit 54% for Win 764-bit 11% 32- bit 89% fgor Vista 64-bit <1% 32-bit >99% for XPWhich is why I believe Flight will be released in both 32 and 64-bit versions.Heck, Windows 8 might not even be released in 32-bit. (Can anyone confirm Win 8 milestones for 32-bit?)Cheers,- jahman.

Your still going to need more than 4Gb of RAM (especially with the amount of RAM GPU's have on them these days) even if you run outside of process, ergo you would be better off with 64bit OS, otherwise you are going to limit the number of addons you can run at the same time. Clearly I'm not going to convince you that 32bit is the past and that its holding everyone back in the industry, so I'll leave it at that.

If you read my posts you'll see I never said there shouldn't/wouldn't be a 64-bit version.I'm pointing out the commercial reality that Microsoft cannot afford to ignore the existing 32-bit market just to keep a small number of enthusiasts happy. The figures suggest that at least 65% of current PCs are 32 bit.

On page 15 of the June issue of PCWorld there is a piece called Windows 8 --- Hints of Things to Come, by Brennan Slattery. Item #5 is *128 bits of power*: It states "Windows 8 will employ 128-bit architecture, which would represent the next leap in computer performance".

Which doesn't mean a thing unless there is hardware/software support.

Flight doesn't need 2 separate SKUs in order to enable both 32-bit and 64-bit compatibility, MS need only include the executable and appropriate libraries for each, allowing the user to choose which option they want when the application is installed.

Mike,you hurt my brain.  This is a quote from you on the other 64bit thread".......So, I can 100% guarantee you that FLIGHT will be a 32-bit application. The only 64-bit applications that MS makes are server apps such as Exchange Server 2010, Sharepoint Server, etc which need access to huge amounts of memory. Even though full adoption of 64-bit architecture would benefit the consumer market, it is still a long way to go until a 64-bit game will be developed due to low adoption of 64-bit OS's."    :(

You seem to be easily confused. I'm not sure what you're getting at...I alluded to the same thing in both posts. If you need help with the big words let me know.

You seem to be easily confused.  I'm not sure what you're getting at...I alluded to the same thing in both posts.  If you need help with the big words let me know.

I thought i knew the true you .... thanks for confirming One of your notes says a huge increase the adoption of 64bit and in another tread you state that 64bit didnt have a good adoption rate.