64 Bit Development?

[Kasracer]

So from a development point of view is it a good idea? And if so how hard is it to provide applications that target 32 Bit systems that are developed on a 64 bit system?

Yes, it is a good idea as within the next iteration or two of Windows, 32-bit versions of Windows will go the way of the dinosaur (as it should).

It's insanely simple to target both 32-bit and 64-bit OSes within .Net. With .Net, you can set it to compile specifically for a 32-bit or 64-bit process but you can also set it (by default I believe) so it can dynamically target both. This is done via JIT compiling it for 64-bit on 64-bit architectures. No coding changes required

There could be plenty of difficulties not only for VB6 apps but C/C++/etc as well...

You make it sound as if it's difficult to build an application on 32-bit and 64-bit architectures but if it's developed well, it's almost always a compiler switch and done.

The thing to keep in mind is to make sure you know the sizes of the old then new data types. The OP is moving away from VB6 so he will avoid that mess (it's a mess on 32-bit too). The OP said he was using .Net and moving away from VB6 so I'm not sure of the relevance of your post but I guess it's good to have some background.

But .NET applications built for 32 bit systems can work?

Yes. All .Net applications will work just fine under 64-bit unless you're doing something very very wrong in your code.

Generally speaking yes, they should work but in reality they need to be thoroughly tested just to ensure that every aspect of your app works identical on different platforms.

Agreed, it should be well tested. I am running Vista 64-bit (and have been doing so) since Vista's release and it's been rock solid. I've only had two applications that did not work under 64-bit and 1 was due to it requiring 32-bit drivers to be installed (and all drivers must be 64-bit under a 64-bit system) and iTunes (which now works) which is due to bad development.

And it's not only about programming language (or framework) but rather underlying hardware architecture - 64 bit processing is a whole new and different world.

A whole new and different world? Hardly. It's still the same x86 architecture except that the computer can process twice as many bits at the sametime and can address more memory than before. That's it. It's a step in the right direction but it's still the same architecture we've been using for over a decade. I wish we could switch to a newer architecture as x86 is really showing its age.

[RhinoBull]

...A whole new and different world? Hardly. It's still the same x86 architecture...

I'm afraid I disagree but also don't intend to open new arguments.

Regards.

[Kasracer]

I'm afraid I disagree but also don't intend to open new arguments.

How can you disagree? The proper name is x86-64. Check out the Wikipedia entry. I don't want to start a new line of arguments either but AMD created x86-64, Intel cloned it and called it Intel 64 (or EM64T) and it is now incorporated in all of Intel's latest processors as well as the AMD64 and other AMD processors. Windows 64-bit runs on x86-64. It's just a superset. Sure, there are other features of x86-64 but they're minor in comparison and still operate on the x86 architecture.