3 ms·
To add to that, the reason these installers are 32 bit isn’t necessarily legacy or laziness. If you’re packaging your software to run on both 32 bit and 64 bit
by overgard 7y ago
To add to that, the reason these installers are 32 bit isn’t necessarily legacy or laziness. If you’re packaging your software to run on both 32 bit and 64 bit it makes sense to make your installer run on the lowest common denominator and install the appropriate version, as opposed to providing two installers and leaving it up to the user. So 32 bit is the obvious choice. On windows this isn’t a problem because Microsoft rarely drops support for things.
- buckminster 7y agoThis is kind of the same reason 16-bit installers were a thing for NT software. In the mid 90s when NT ran on four different processor architectures all of the non-x86 platforms had emulation for 16-bit x86. So MS recommended that you bootstrap your install with a 16-bit process that checked it was running on a 32-bit platform (i.e. not 16-bit Windows) and then launched the appropriate 32-bit installer for the CPU.