New
#191
And that is why I make an effort to dispel these myths. If someone wants to argue a point, then they should, at least, know a bit about the point they are arguing. These were the same lame arguments used by the trade rags to rip Vista.Actually, the misconception is brought upon by how Windows Update, when you want to do it manually, required Internet Explorer on Windows XP and in some cases on Windows 2003. Hence people are under the belief of that.Not sure if this is a troll or not, but just in case you really believe what you wrote, let me try and dispel that mis-conception.
First of all, Windows Update does NOT use the browser. It is a stand-alone program (32-bit in x86 and 64-bit in x64 Windows 7). You don't need to have IE installed to use the Update program.
The reason 32-bit IE is default, is that almost all of the popular add-ins, both MS and non-MS, are 32-bit plugins. Flash, up until just a few months ago, did not have a 64-bit plugin.
Also, just to put the "MS doesn't support 64-bit" argument to rest, Office 2010, the most sold Windows Application, is available in 64-bit. That required a tremendous amount of man-power. Much of the Excel source-code was written in assembly upto Office 2003. Converting the 32-bit version to 64-bit required a large amount of fresh code. And it had to equal or beat the performance of the previous version.
Large software houses, like MS, can't just throw software out on the market and hope it sticks. If you talk to the Silverlight guys about 64-bit Silverlight, they would love to get a 64-bit version out there, but the VAST majority of IE installs are 32-bit. The minute a 64-bit version goes out, it has to be supported with the same amount of vigor as any other software package, and frankly, the team isn't big enough to handle that load, and the cost-benefit analysis points to sticking to 32-bit for at least one more version.
As for 64 bit, you are right, they won't make an effort to really support it until there is a high demand.