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

View more comments

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.

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.

Certainly not a first in my books. MS has missed the ball many of times. It's not that they are always late to the game, but it happens quite often none the less.

A good example would be the Windows Mobile 7 article that was mentioned today where the OS is predicted to not be due until 2010. As far as I'm aware that will be their first real shot at targeting WM to mainstream users. Current releases come off as too technical and business oriented and rely far too heavily on third parties to improve on the UI with home screens rather than something that is easy for general users.

That and they let Google really get away at the start of the decade in relation to online search.

So yeah, with that in mind I think it's fair to say they are late to the party on many occasions.

I just walked past an 02 store a few hours ago , On the window theyre was a poster for of the samsung omania a phone which has reached the 11 million mark . And it runs you guessed it windows mobile.

Hell thats not mainstream thats mainstreat , And what a nice surprise not an shiphone poster in sight ...

Not surprising considering Windows Mobiles outsold Shiphones this year....

^ 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

RogerT said,
Adobe have a fully-functional and stable beta version of Flash 10 64-bit for Linux only.

Which is about 0.5% of the market. Unless Adobe have a 64bit version of Flash for Windows, they're still in the same boat as Microsoft.

Kushan said,
Which is about 0.5% of the market. Unless Adobe have a 64bit version of Flash for Windows, they're still in the same boat as Microsoft.

I'm simply making the point that Adobe have developed a working 64-bit Flash plugin, even if it's for another OS. The fact they bothered with Linux before Windows makes it all the more significant; they didn't have to. At the very least this makes Flash operate on more architectures than Silverlight.

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.

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.

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.

Airlink said,
Who cares? Nobody uses ****ing Silverlight anyways. Flash rules, Silverlight drools.

Rubbish. There are hundreds if not thousands of websites that use Silverlight. Also parts of the BBC iPlayer use it, as does the Sky Player. Silverlight is far superior to Flash. Flash was the dominant product in this area for so many years and was allowed to stagnate with little or no development. Silverlight changed that.

To be fair they're completely different frameworks , Silverlight is interpreted flash is binary . Which is best depends on what you want to do flash tends to be better when building complex graphical applications (www.papervision3d.org) , Silverlight currently has the upper hand in streaming video .

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.

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.

qwertz123 said,
*bummer*

nobody was saying that the transition to 64bit is a one week job but after nearly 4 years things are developing MUCH slower than expected.


Our own actions as users (especially enthusiast communities such as Neowin) are NOT helping! We're still telling fellow enthusiasts and other users not to migrate to 64-bit unless you have 4 GB (or more) of RAM, and *why*?

1. Performance? There is no performance decrease in running a 32-bit-only application in a 64-bit OS (so far, at worst, any performance loss is offset by the increased stability brought in by the WOW64 thunk layer). In some cases, there is actually a performance *gain*.

2. Driver issues? Unless you're running under-supported or unusual hardware, you by and large won't *have* any driver issues. Even ATI's HDTV Wonder is supported in Vista Ultimate 64-bit (and Windows 7 64-bit as well). The same appleis to Creative's Sound Blaster X-Fi and Audigy 2 ZS.

3. Gaming support. (The most often-cited *reason* not to migrate.) If a game runs in XP32, it *will* work in XP64 OR Vista64. At worst, it will thunk, like any other 32-bit application; however, it will still work. From Civilization III to Crysis: Warhead. Bring your games, especailly the newer ones. (Some games are actually 64-bit native, and a 64-bit-ready version of Steam is available right now.)

The only thing holding things up is the enthusiast community (us, in other words).

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

Commenting is disabled on this article.