49

I only see x86 version in msdn downloads.

Ciro Santilli OurBigBook.com
  • 347,512
  • 102
  • 1,199
  • 985
Srikar Doddi
  • 15,499
  • 15
  • 65
  • 106

3 Answers3

49

Rico Mariani basically says:

  1. The size of the pointers expands so all things being equal, the performance of a 64-bit Visual Studio would be less.
  2. All the current add-ins would break.
Nathan Tuggy
  • 2,237
  • 27
  • 30
  • 38
Strelok
  • 50,229
  • 9
  • 102
  • 115
  • 5
    I would call that a "well written" answer, not a "good" answer. :) His argument is pretty much "it's too hard" and brings up all the downsides of a proper x64 application while ignoring the benfits. – Coxy Apr 13 '10 at 03:50
  • 7
    Well I don't develop Visual Studio 2010 :) That guy does. So I would call it a "good" answer. – Strelok Apr 13 '10 at 03:53
  • I just needed to know the reason. Thanks for the helpful link. – Srikar Doddi Apr 13 '10 at 03:53
  • 31
    Could you summarize some of the content of that post, instead of just the link? If the link ever dies, it will be difficult to find back (MSDN has done that do us before) .... – Michael Paulukonis May 09 '11 at 16:02
4

Because there isn't much need for the IDE to take advantage of the 64 bit benefits.

The Framework itself comes in 32 and 64 bit editions.

Which x64 benefits do you want the IDE to take advantage of?

Michael Shimmins
  • 19,961
  • 7
  • 57
  • 90
  • It would also be helpful in order to determine processor architecture from a PowerShell script that spawned inside VS 2010 (like a NuGet package script or something). Of course VS 2012 supports this. – Big McLargeHuge Dec 23 '13 at 19:16
0

I bet most of the work would be testing both editions and managing the code for both editions from a single codebase. This isn't how the IDE team has worked (multi-CPU-architecture) the entire time it has existed. They took the big bet on managed code in VS10, so I can see how they might not want to take on additional risk in that cycle.

If I was managing such a task I'd wait for a longer release cycle.

Update: I was wrong in thinking .NET 5 would be released with Win 8, but no. Instead we got .NET 4.5, then .NET 4.5.1 with Win 8.1. Many small, incremental releases with the shortened Windows release cycles.

yzorg
  • 4,224
  • 3
  • 39
  • 57