Didn't they make a huge deal about explaining why 64 bit was a bad idea?

> With a 64-bit Visual Studio on Windows, you can open, edit, run, and debug even the biggest and most complex solutions without running out of memory.

> I find it really satisfying to watch this video of Visual Studio scaling up to use the additional memory that’s available to a 64-bit process as it opens a solution with 1,600 projects and ~300k files.

I guess the popularity of Node.js finally broke them.

At a previous job we were repeatedly running into memory pressure issues and had talked about converting to a 64-bit application on and off for years. It was something I had pushed for as we were doing increasingly baroque work-arounds and I was asked to do some work to estimate what it would take to convert over. Ultimately it was decided not to do so and one of the repeated reasons that was cited for why we shouldn't was "Visual Studio isn't 64-bit, why are we so worried!?" Suffice it to say, I found that reasoning pretty frustrating and I am curious to know what will happen now that VS can no longer be cited.

I'm not sure if the 64-bit thing solves anything. I mean I use rider with a 1,5gig heap and it is basically fast. visual studio was always slow and 64-bit probably won't change that.

Most of your 32 bit extensions probably won't work on the 64 bit version. I'd wait a year or so before bug testing for Microsoft.

I hope this is one step closer to ARM64 support!

This ^^^ - Longest waiting for this to happen. Solves quite a lot of issues - from not having to support 32-bit for your own extensions, designer forms, etc. to have tests run in the IDE, to not have plugins/extensions all go IPC which is probably not without problems.