10 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• David Berg [msft] commented  ·  April 15, 2013 7:24 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Just wanted to point out that if you run Visual Studio under a 64 bit Operating System that you will have 4GB of Virtual Address space available instead of the 2GB you have under a 32 bit Operating System.

  If you're stuck on a 32 bit OS you can increase the available Virtual Address space up to 3GB using the BCDEDIT /set IncreaseUserVA option (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff542202(v=vs.85).aspx).

• Asesh commented  ·  October 16, 2012 6:02 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  yes, we need VS x64

• Andrew commented  ·  September 29, 2012 8:43 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Also a 64 bit build could gain some performance benefits as well I would think...

• Victor Zakharov commented  ·  August 22, 2012 1:16 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  VS needs to support x64 build/debugging. With same functionality as in x32, including edit and continue.

• Huseyin Yilmaz commented  ·  August 17, 2012 9:34 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  We can't compile our project with VS 2012, because the linker runs out of memory on code generation phase using WPO. (Was no problem on 2010). Development machines have 16 GB RAM installed, and 12 of those sit idle because the compiler and linker are still 32 bit.

• Dave Novak commented  ·  April 18, 2012 2:41 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I agree that there definitely needs to be BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit versions. We have been building all of our software in both flavors now for years, so why can't Visual Studio do the same?

• Luna Lovelace commented  ·  April 18, 2012 12:56 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Bad idea. Releasing both 32 bit and 64 bit is an option but 64 only is not a good idea. There are many Pentium 4 systems still in use in the world running Visual Studio and Windows 7 especially in the enterprise world.

  People tend to underestimate Pentium 4's they are still very capable for today's computing needs.

• Dave Novak commented  ·  April 11, 2012 4:41 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Doesn't everyone buy 64-bit machines nowadays? Everyone in our office has one and all of my "modern" machines at home are 64-bit as well. Why not a 64-bit dev environment?

• Egor Sinkevich commented  ·  April 5, 2012 4:11 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  At the moment all developers in our company works on blades with x64 and more than 8GB memory, usually it's 12 GB and some of us has 16 GB. unfortunately because VS is still x32 process it cannot utilize whole memory we have (((. So, X64 really really needed.

• Hannes Kochniß commented  ·  October 21, 2011 2:09 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  We too would like to have as many projects as possible in one solution, right now we work with ~ 20 Solutions because of that (and some other) issues.