Microsoft warns against using 64-bit Office 2010

[Shayla]

Microsoft is advising its customers to install the 32-bit, rather than the 64-bit, version of Office 2010.

The advice is tucked away in an FAQ about the Office 2010 Tech Guarantee programme, which will ensure that buyers of Office 2007 will get a free upgrade to the new Office suite when its launched.

From the FAQ:

Will a 64-bit version of the Office 2010 product be available?

Yes, 64-bit Office 2010 product upgrades will be available. However we strongly recommend most users install 32-bit version of Office 2010 on both 32 and 64-bit Operating Systems because currently many common add-ins for Office will not function in the 64-bit edition. The 64-bit installation of Microsoft Office 2010 products will be available for users who commonly use very large documents or data set and need Excel 2010 programs to access greater than 2GB of memory. There may be technical issues with the 64-bit version and in order to install a 64-bit version of Office 2010 product users must have a 64-bit supported operating system on their PC.

"We strongly recommend most users install 32-bit version of Office 2010 on both 32 and 64-bit operating systems because currently many common add-ins for Office will not function in the 64-bit edition," Microsoft warns.

"The 64-bit installation of Microsoft Office 2010 products will be available for users who commonly use very large documents or data sets and need Excel 2010 programs to access greater than 2GB of memory.

"There may be technical issues with the 64-bit version and in order to install a 64-bit version of Office 2010 product users must have a 64-bit supported operating system on their PC," Microsoft adds.

Even some of Microsoft's own Office plugins are not yet compatible with the 64-bit software, including the Outlook Social Connector, which hooks the software into social networks such as Facebook. Third party plugins from LinkedIn and Symantec are also 32-bit only.

Source : PCPro

[cabron]

I don't need add-ins so 64bit version is not an issue for me.

[Nagisan]

Looks like I'm safe to use 64-bit Office....I never use any add-ins in office.....I simply install Word, Excel and Powerpoint and use them as-is.

Now, I probably do not need to use 64-bit Office, as I doubt I will be opening large files, but I prefer to run 64-bit software on a 64-bit OS.

[Ryoken]

Using 64bit programs just for the sake of it is stupid anyway.. People that go out of their way to find only 64bit programs that gives them no advantage, and often carries it's own problems like the ones MS just stated, general compatibility, in addition to being on average more prone to bugs due the code being less tested ( by the test of time, or by general release ).

[Huleboeren]

I don't need add-ins so 64bit version is not an issue for me.

I will assume you dont 'use very large documents or data set and need Excel 2010 programs to access greater than 2GB of memory' either lol.

Having win 7 x64 I will go with 32bit office 2010 because the probability of me needing add-ins is higher than me needing to use documents that exceed 2gigs of memory :p

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I don't need add-ins, or work with 2GB+ files, but this bit concerns me.

"There may be technical issues with the 64-bit version"

I wouldn't expect to see any more issues than with the 32bit version, unless I'm just misreading this and it's just elaborating more on the add-ins bit.

[boogerjones]

Hopefully Adobe will update their Acrobat plugin by the end of 2010.

[p1p3]

The only issue I have noted with the 64-bit version is that outlook refuses to sync with mobile phones. Both my windows mobile and android phone is affected. However the ability to work with a couple of hundred thousand data points in excel and plot them more than makes up for that issue.

[M_Lyons10]

Yeah, I don't use add ins either... But this is an interesting point. I hope add ins get updated soon to work with 64 bit, because this could really be an issue for people that don't see this warning...

I will assume you dont 'use very large documents or data set and need Excel 2010 programs to access greater than 2GB of memory' either lol.

Having win 7 x64 I will go with 32bit office 2010 because the probability of me needing add-ins is higher than me needing to use documents that exceed 2gigs of memory :p

Yeah, I have to say that that would be a heck of a large document... I can't imagine. LOL

Designers and stuff I'm sure get large files sometimes, but wow...

[Shadrack]

Does anyone know how excel 32bit will handle "memory intense" files made in 64bit?

[agreenbhm]

This isn't news. 64-bit apps won't work with 32-bit plugins... shocking!

[boogerjones]

because this could really be an issue for people that don't see this warning...

Probably not. The Office 2010 setup will install the 32-bit version by default; you have to actively browse to and manually run the 64-bit setup. So most people who know to install the 64-bit version (like people on Neowin) will probably be aware of its potential disadvantages.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Does anyone know how excel 32bit will handle "memory intense" files made in 64bit?

It wont.

If it goes over the 32bit apps limits, it just wont load it (and if it would, then there's no reason to get the 64it version)

[hagjohn]

Using 64bit programs just for the sake of it is stupid anyway.. People that go out of their way to find only 64bit programs that gives them no advantage, and often carries it's own problems like the ones MS just stated, general compatibility, in addition to being on average more prone to bugs due the code being less tested ( by the test of time, or by general release ).

I doubt that there is no "advantage"... I would bet that 64bit Office loads quicker and runs better than it's 32bit counterpart. Most 64bit apps do run better and faster than their 32bit counterparts. At least that's what I see. While add-ins are not 64bit, there are probably a lot of companies that can probably use the advantages of 64bit, so I doubt it will take too long for development of 64bit add-ins.

I would love to see more development of 64bit personally. I would love to see flash go 64bit because on my system 64bit IE runs a lot faster than 32bit IE (I bet other browsers would too) and frankly I bet flash would run a whole lot better as well (as long as they do it right).

[trip21]

Hopefully Adobe will update their Acrobat plugin by the end of 2010.

Don't hold your breath still SFA done about 64bit Flash

[boogerjones]

I would bet that 64bit Office loads quicker and runs better than it's 32bit counterpart. Most 64bit apps do run better and faster than their 32bit counterparts. At least that's what I see.

What you "see" is probably what you want to see. The 64-bit versions may even startup slower since they have to allocate more memory, but the slow step in startup will be file IO, so ultimately I would expect very little difference between the two. Go to the Office 2010 team blogs; they say very frankly that the 64-bit code is often slower than the 32-bit counterparts, but sometimes faster. They note that Excel consumes up to 1.5 times more memory on x64 when doing the same tasks as the 32-bit version.

Certain 64-bit applications clearly benefit from proper 64-bit coding: all cryptography operations can be optimized, imaging applications can perform filters faster, etc. But don't make the mistake that 64-bit code = faster code; it's simply a widespread misconception. And how many of you are actually doing real-world time-measurement comparisons with the 64-bit versus 32-bit versions of Office 2010? I'll answer that: none of you are.

[Avi]

What you "see" is probably what you want to see. The 64-bit versions may even startup slower since they have to allocate more memory, but the slow step in startup will be file IO, so ultimately I would expect very little difference between the two. Go to the Office 2010 team blogs; they say very frankly that the 64-bit code is often slower than the 32-bit counterparts, but sometimes faster. They note that Excel consumes up to 1.5 times more memory on x64 when doing the same tasks as the 32-bit version.

Certain 64-bit applications clearly benefit from proper 64-bit coding: all cryptography operations can be optimized, imaging applications can perform filters faster, etc. But don't make the mistake that 64-bit code = faster code; it's simply a widespread misconception. And how many of you are actually doing real-world time-measurement comparisons with the 64-bit versus 32-bit versions of Office 2010? I'll answer that: none of you are.

Well, assuming I won't want/need any plugins for the various office programs, why would I want to use 32bits on a 64bits Windows?

You're forgetting that 32 bits programs use the WOW64 compatibility layer which does indeed makes more calls for every Windows API call.

People often compare 32 bits to 64 bits forgetting that some programs use assembly optimizations on 32bits and NO optimizations (yet) on 64bits.

[Motoko.]

What you "see" is probably what you want to see. The 64-bit versions may even startup slower since they have to allocate more memory, but the slow step in startup will be file IO, so ultimately I would expect very little difference between the two. Go to the Office 2010 team blogs; they say very frankly that the 64-bit code is often slower than the 32-bit counterparts, but sometimes faster. They note that Excel consumes up to 1.5 times more memory on x64 when doing the same tasks as the 32-bit version.

Certain 64-bit applications clearly benefit from proper 64-bit coding: all cryptography operations can be optimized, imaging applications can perform filters faster, etc. But don't make the mistake that 64-bit code = faster code; it's simply a widespread misconception. And how many of you are actually doing real-world time-measurement comparisons with the 64-bit versus 32-bit versions of Office 2010? I'll answer that: none of you are.

Yeah I learned that right away, I absolutely saw no difference in my use for Windows 64 but I simply was pushing the 2GB physical ram barrier on my previous notebook so I got this ASUS that came with 4GB.

[boogerjones]

Well, assuming I won't want/need any plugins for the various office programs, why would I want to use 32bits on a 64bits Windows?

You wouldn't and I didn't make that recommendation. I just said that you shouldn't expect some blazing increase in speed. If you do, you'll be disappointed.

[Mockingbird]

If you buy it on a DVD, both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Office 2010 will be available. If you install 32-bit Office, for example, and you decide later you want to use 64-bit Office instead, the 32-bit version must be uninstalled (it?s as simple as uninstalling any other program) before installing the 64-bit version.

On the DVD, you?ll notice that the file structure looks like this:

On a computer with no Office products installed, the setup.exe file denoted by the red arrow is the ?platform selector.? If you run it, it will automatically install 32-bit Office 2010 by default, even on 64-bit Windows. The only time it will install 64-bit Office is if it detects 64-bit Office already installed on your computer. If you want to install 64-bit Office, then open the x64 folder and run setup.exe from there. Similarly, running the setup.exe file in the x86 folder will install 32-bit Office directly.

You?ll see these instructions if you run setup.exe on 64-bit Windows, select Customize, and click on the Platform tab.

There you have it. Most people 64-bit Windows users will install Office 2010 32-bit by default.

[Motoko.]

hmm.. interesting to say the least.

I suppose for most users 32bit should suffice. I'm a power user but the benefits of using this in 64bit is like using IE 64bit from the way I'm understanding this.

[qdave]

I had no issues with Office 2010 64 beta so i guess i am safe to use it.

[Ci7]

installing 32bit in 64bit windows by default

seriously microsoft that is ******* move

[Buio]

Using 64bit programs just for the sake of it is stupid anyway.. People that go out of their way to find only 64bit programs that gives them no advantage, and often carries it's own problems like the ones MS just stated, general compatibility, in addition to being on average more prone to bugs due the code being less tested ( by the test of time, or by general release ).

So you are saying I should use 32-bit version even though a stable 64-bit version is available and runs fine for me but gives no real performance advantages? When are we going to change to 64-bit software then? When all applications are made readily for 64-bit? And how is that going to happen if everybody keeps using 32-bit versions and not asking for a change or increased 64-bit support?

The news post clearly stated Microsoft stance on this, if you need to run plug-ins run the 32-bit version. If you have huge datasets and documents, use the 64-bit version. As I don't have any plug-ins for Office now, I don't see why I should not run the 64-bit version (if I upgrade).

Even gamers are switching to Windows 7 64-bit. On Steam the number of 64-bit installations are more than double that of the 32-bit version. That makes for a large base of 64-bit support for games in the future. Which could be beneficial for some games allowing memory addressing over 2GB.

[boogerjones]

installing 32bit in 64bit windows by default

seriously microsoft that is ******* move

LOL, relax. Did you read the article? There's a pretty good reason for the decision.