Judging from your Lemmy username and the article byline, I think you’re the author of the article, is that right?
Steam only being 32-bit isn’t improving compatibility, it’s being lazy. You can write code that works on both architectures for the best performance and compatibility across all PCs, like Chrome, Firefox, MS Office, etc.
You absolutely can, but it doesn’t come from now where and the 32-bit version exists. If Valve has to maintain 32-bit for compatibility on some older systems, and you’re introducing the 64-bit requirement now too its raising the Valve support burden maintaining two separate code bases which is a huge amount of effort and cost.
And for what benefit? The only cited problem of a lack of 64 bit client today cited from the article is that some distros of Linux which have removed the 32-bit support libraries cannot run Steam for Linux. However, Linux being very customizable, the users could likely just add 32-bit support back themselves.
The benefit is improved performance and a better user experience. The Chromium-based components of Steam (like the store) are slow in part because of that.
Perhaps, but all of these things must be measured in the benefit to business. Does the performance between a 32-bit or 64-bit versions translate to a difference in sales? Are there user complaints sufficient that there is lost satisfaction to competitors large enough to offset the development and support burden from the investment in a 64 bit client? My guess is that the answer is “no” or Valve would have made this change already. These are the way businesses make these decisions.
Judging from your Lemmy username and the article byline, I think you’re the author of the article, is that right?
You absolutely can, but it doesn’t come from now where and the 32-bit version exists. If Valve has to maintain 32-bit for compatibility on some older systems, and you’re introducing the 64-bit requirement now too its raising the Valve support burden maintaining two separate code bases which is a huge amount of effort and cost.
And for what benefit? The only cited problem of a lack of 64 bit client today cited from the article is that some distros of Linux which have removed the 32-bit support libraries cannot run Steam for Linux. However, Linux being very customizable, the users could likely just add 32-bit support back themselves.
The benefit is improved performance and a better user experience. The Chromium-based components of Steam (like the store) are slow in part because of that.
Perhaps, but all of these things must be measured in the benefit to business. Does the performance between a 32-bit or 64-bit versions translate to a difference in sales? Are there user complaints sufficient that there is lost satisfaction to competitors large enough to offset the development and support burden from the investment in a 64 bit client? My guess is that the answer is “no” or Valve would have made this change already. These are the way businesses make these decisions.
He didn’t answer your first question. I get the feeling you’re right and he’s the author.
Yep, never tried to hide that.
Yes you did, by not answering. You’re being very obtuse.
Aside from this post I have never in my life heard one single person complain about 32vs64bit. It’s the most silly thing for him to be upset about.