Perhaps the question you should ask is why would they expend the effort in releasing a 64 bit version? Keep in mind you can already compile for x64 from Visual Studio. There would be a lot of code to change for little benefit. In terms of performance there is little to gain and indeed a lot to lose. 64 bit addressing takes up double the space for instance so cpu cache and memory usage is going to go up. The only thing you conceivably gain is the ability to have greater than 4gb of memory usage in the visual studio process. If you really think you need this you might need to be looking at trimming down your solution size; you are doing something wrong.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Katherine Moss <katherine.m...@gordon.edu>wrote: > Dang, it shouldn’t be. What was Microsoft on when they made that > decision? LOL. **** > > ** ** > > *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *Craig van Nieuwkerk > *Sent:* Monday, March 04, 2013 4:10 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: Does anybody know why the visual studio 2012 developer > command prompt points to a 32-bit path when on a 64-bit OS?**** > > ** ** > > AFAIK, Visual Studio is still a 32bit application, so possibly related.*** > * > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Katherine Moss <katherine.m...@gordon.edu> > wrote:**** > > I was wondering if this is the case with anyone else using the 64 bit > version of Windows 8, it's the case for me, and I think that if the OS is > 64 bit, then shouldn't most of the tools and applications running on it > also be? Thanks for your input.**** > > ** ** >
