Microsoft: No plans for 64-bit Silverlight 3

Once again Microsoft is going back on its push for 64-bit computing for the masses.

In an interview with ars technica Scott Guthrie, corporate vice president of Microsoft's .NET Developer Division gave the following response regarding Micrsoft's 64-bit Silverlight plans:

Right now our plan is to run SL in 32-bit mode (and not have a 64-bit native version). This is mostly because other browser plug-ins (and most browsers) don't support 64-bit yet. We are looking at adding native 64-bit support in the future though.

The lack of companies supporting the push for 64-bit computing is evident and Microsoft needs to lead the way to ensure people can swap to 64-bit browsers and use the addins they are familiar with.

Microsoft will kick off Mix 09 next month where the software company is widely expected to introduce Silverlight 3. The update will contain increased media support, including H.264 video support. The promised 3D and GPU hardware support should create a noticeable improvement in graphics.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Bungie: After ODST, no more Halo 3 support

Next Story

Neowin Review: Fence your desktop with Stardock Fences

54 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Microsoft should have been more aggresive in pushing IE 64-bit browsing.

Meaning that IE 64-bit should the the default browser in 64-bit OS and not otherwise...

By doing so, the user/pick-up rate will be higher and plugin developer will be more willing to code in 64-bit

Microsoft offers IE in 64-bits favour but enable 32-bits browser by default on 64-bits OS.

In one way, it is MS they themselves who are discouraging people to go the 64-bit way.

Who can we blame for not having plugins for 64-bits browser???

andyqkw said,
Who can we blame for not having plugins for 64-bits browser???


the plugin writer of course?

ms just goes the safe route with the 32bit browser set to default.

By and large, the demand for 64-bit browser plug-ins (especially in Windows) is NOT there. Adobe won't go there, and Microsoft won't go there, either. Worse still is the attitude among Neowinians toward 64-bit operating systems (especially 64-bit Windows): don't go there unless you have 4 GB of RAM (or more). (I've seen that response in *every* thread from someone asking whether they should switch/crossgrade; in most threads, it makes up the majority response.) Never mind that, in the main, there is NO performance penalty from moving from Win32 to Win64, even with as little as 512 MB of RAM (the minimum any Win64 OS requires; I've migrated four systems with RAM loadouts from 2 GB to as little as 512 MB, including my own 1 GB Celeron DC, one of just two dual-core systems to get crossgraded). Never mind that, for most of the past year, driver support on 64-bit Windows is the equal of 32-bit Windows (especially in Vista 64's case; even more telling, is that it didn't require Vista's Service Pack 1 to get there). Never mind that 64-bit processing is at every computing level from the server to the netbook. (Yes; I did say "netbook". A 64-bit version of Atom is, in fact, shipping (the Atom 330).) The push remains toward 32-bit, even though there's really no reason for it other than the *comfort factor*. The plug-in developers (Microsoft, Adobe, et. alia.) see no reason to move because we, as a community, are *stifling* the growth in 64-bit browser marketshare by stifling the transition to 64-bit operating systems. Sun is also in the hardware business, and is shipping a 64-bit native operating system for Intel/AMD today (Solaris); Sun has also pretty much bet the company on Java. (Sun therefore had no real choice BUT to develop a 64-bit-native implementation, considering the current sluggish state of Java32 performance.)


Microsoft and Adobe aren't going there because there's no reason TO go there. And it's our fault.

Someone got to get the ball rolling...

Currently the situation is like i'm waiting for you and you waiting for me so this thing is gonna take forever.

I was hoping to see a 64-bit version of Silverlight long before 64-bit Flash on Windows. We've got 64-bit Java runtimes now, we just need the plugins to be 64-bit. IE 64-bit goes pretty much unused on my computer becuase of there is no 64-bit plugins yet.

Yeah the lack of 64 bit browsers is not the reason 64 bit plugins are being held back. It is the other way around. I would use FF x64 on all my machines if all the plugins worked.

^ nah .

there are Firefox x64 , internet explorer x64 . and i believe Apple gonna recompile safari into x86-64 for osx 10.6

plugin like Flash and sliverlight is holding us back

i believe it is a bit stupid from there side to not work for 64bit plugin

since there competition(adobe) has start working on it

So that in the future people can start to make use of a 64bit browser? It's just progression although at the same time I don't think web browsers currently will stand to gain a huge deal from a x64 transition. Still, it'd be nice to start making strides towards that direction.

MMaster23 said,
Why would you want a 64bit version of a browser plugin?
Most browsers (>99%) run in 32bit mode...

Chicken and the Egg my friend. Nobody will start using the 64-bit version of IE without plugin support. And nobody will write 64-bit plugins without users on 64-bit IE.

Microsoft is damned when it took leadership role in software development.
Microsoft is damned when it's not taking leadership role in software development.

cork1958 said,
This time they just so happened to be damned for making such a stupid and unecessary program!!


ITs not stupid. Silverlight can be upgraded via wsus and flash cannot be. That makes it much easier for us admins. I wish everybody would dump flash and use silverlight for that reason alone.

majortom1981 said,
ITs not stupid. Silverlight can be upgraded via wsus and flash cannot be. That makes it much easier for us admins. I wish everybody would dump flash and use silverlight for that reason alone.


Agreed.

cork1958 said,
This time they just so happened to be damned for making such a stupid and unecessary program!!

How I love reading the posts of trolls :)

I'll humor you though, cause I feel like it... Silverlight is FAR superior to flash. Just because it came out after Flash, doesn't mean it's "stupid and unecessary". By you're argument, Flash is "stupid and unecessary" too.

Horray for Silverlight! Yet a proprietary framework completely incompatible with the competition! I'm not saying the competition is better, I'm saying that IF we must have these kind of non-web platforms on the web, there need to be at least a standardizing organization behind them that MS, Adobe, etc are part of. It's ridiculous that I have to install yet a plugin for apps that often do no more than Flash already. Wouldn't it be amazing if there was one "rich web application framework" that companies contributed to cooperatively as an open standard for cross-platform availability? It's time to move out of the stone age in this area. Imagine CSS or HTML if it was proprietary and you had to download plugins to render various pages. That's where we are with this crap.

Jugalator said,
Horray for Silverlight! Yet a proprietary framework completely incompatible with the competition! I'm not saying the competition is better, I'm saying that IF we must have these kind of non-web platforms on the web, there need to be at least a standardizing organization behind them that MS, Adobe, etc are part of.


Shut up. Competition is good.

thenonhacker said,
Shut up. Competition is good.

Wrong. Non-government interference is good. So long as the companies form organizations and standards on their own without government force, it can very well be a good thing. Nobody is required to give their technology to the ISO, thank God.

freeeekyyy said,
Wrong. Non-government interference is good.

I guess you haven't paid attention to the news for the past few years have you? 8P

@RAID 0 Not right : there was 32bit support for windows 3.11 which came on two diskettes and included for first time freecell

@Digix - There is flash player 10 for 64-bit OSes

neoraptor said,
@RAID 0 Not right : there was 32bit support for windows 3.11 which came on two diskettes and included for first time freecell

@Digix - There is flash player 10 for 64-bit OSes


not for 64-bit browsers he means. flash is only supported in 64 bit windows on 32-bit browsers.

neoraptor did say for 64bit OS's, does not have to be Windows. Was under the impression there was a x64 flash player for linux.

This one seems to confuse people all the time. Flash, Silverlight ect all work absolutly fine on x64 operating systems. The lack of x64 support by these plugins simply means that they can't be used in a browser compiled to x64. Very few browsers are currently distributed in x64 favours in any big way.

Go try both the 64 and 32 bit versions of IE on a windows machine. Your ability to get plugins and the like working on the individual builds will vary drastically.

macrosslover said,
not for 64-bit browsers he means. flash is only supported in 64 bit windows on 32-bit browsers.

Linux has 64bit flash support.

Smigit said,
...Very few browsers are currently distributed in x64 favours in any big way...

It's not like the most widely used browser has a 64-bit version is it? Oh wait....

TCLN Ryster said,
It's not like the most widely used browser has a 64-bit version is it? Oh wait....

And sitting right next to it in the start bar is the 32 bit version. Infact I'd be pretty damn certain that if you run any application on windows that launches a browser that it will be that 32 bit one that by default is opened in favour of the 64 bit one.

I didn't say 64 bit ones didn't exist. Firefox, IE ect have them. They however are taking a big backseat to the 32 bit builds.

Yer Windows x64 is a bit of a joke. Programs like IE, WMP all default to 32bit even though 64bit is installed. Trying to change them is a pain too.