PureBasic Forums - English

I do not care if you can build 32-bit applications as well.
If you could build 16-bit applications (or 128-bit applications in the future), that would be great too.
But you will not get rid of 32-bit applications very quickly.

Currently: (Pro 32bit and 64bit)
In most cases, however, 64-bit programs are not needed.
For the largest percentage of all existing programs, 32 bits are still sufficient.
The change from 16 to 32 bits was different.
16-bit applications were exhausted and the storage was just not enough.
At 32bit this is not the case in the distant future.
Compatibility with 32-bit programs is also greater than with pure 64-bit programs.

Future:
Let us all surprise.
Maybe the leaf is spinning?

My 3c...

I write and maintain a library management system designed for schools. I have over 2500 customers scattered all over the world. The entire system is written in PureBasic. The reality: nearly half of my customers still have 32-bit Windows operating systems, usually Windows 7, and even a few still have XP systems. Just this year 64-bit Windows 10 systems are finally beginning to penetrate my users in a major way. I cannot dictate to users to upgrade their systems. I have to write for the market, the users. It would be nice to say everything can be 64-bit, but in reality it is not yet practical. Thankfully a 32-bit compilation works on 64-bit, too. So for now I am compiling as 32-bit. At the moment, I see no advantage to go 64-bit: I have not found it faster, there are no new important functions (at least in PB), and the compiled programs are larger. I anticipate several years to pass before most users have upgraded to 64-bit systems.

DeanH wrote:My 3c... I anticipate several years to pass before most users have upgraded to 64-bit systems.

You need only a bug fix LTS 32bit version of PB. Not the latest one