why is not 64-bit installer the default download link for Windows?
If one goes to httWhps://www.python.org/downloads <https://www.python.org/downloads> from a Windows browser, the default download URL is for the 32-bit installer instead of the 64-bit one. I wonder why is this still the case? Shouldn't we encourage new Windows users (who may not even know the distinction between the two architectures) to use the 64-bit version of Python, since most likely they can? If this is not the correct forum for this, please let me know where I can direct my question/feature request, thanks. Cosimo -- Cosimo Lupo
On 09Jul2018 0803, Cosimo Lupo wrote:
If one goes to httWhps://www.python.org/downloads <https://www.python.org/downloads> from a Windows browser, the default download URL is for the 32-bit installer instead of the 64-bit one. I wonder why is this still the case? Shouldn't we encourage new Windows users (who may not even know the distinction between the two architectures) to use the 64-bit version of Python, since most likely they can?
The difficulty is that they *definitely* can use the 32-bit version, and those few who are on older machines or older installs of Windows may not understand why the link we provide didn't work for them. From the various telemetry I've seen (and I work at Microsoft, so I have better access than most :) ), there is still enough 32-bit Windows out there that I'm not confident enough with "most likely". I haven't checked any location data (not even sure if we've got it), but I'd guess that there's higher 32-bit usage among less privileged countries and people. I've thought a bit about making a single installer that can offer the option of 32-bit/64-bit at install time, but I don't actually think it's that big a problem to deserve that much effort as a solution. Perhaps we should add non-button text below the button saying "Get the 64-bit version"? Cheers, Steve
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:01:00 -0700 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org> wrote:
On 09Jul2018 0803, Cosimo Lupo wrote:
If one goes to httWhps://www.python.org/downloads <https://www.python.org/downloads> from a Windows browser, the default download URL is for the 32-bit installer instead of the 64-bit one. I wonder why is this still the case? Shouldn't we encourage new Windows users (who may not even know the distinction between the two architectures) to use the 64-bit version of Python, since most likely they can?
The difficulty is that they *definitely* can use the 32-bit version, and those few who are on older machines or older installs of Windows may not understand why the link we provide didn't work for them.
From the various telemetry I've seen (and I work at Microsoft, so I have better access than most :) ), there is still enough 32-bit Windows out there that I'm not confident enough with "most likely". I haven't checked any location data (not even sure if we've got it), but I'd guess that there's higher 32-bit usage among less privileged countries and people.
I've thought a bit about making a single installer that can offer the option of 32-bit/64-bit at install time, but I don't actually think it's that big a problem to deserve that much effort as a solution.
Perhaps we should add non-button text below the button saying "Get the 64-bit version"?
Or perhaps the 32-bit installer could detect a 64-bit system and add an info box at the beginning? Regards Antoine.
On 09Jul2018 0922, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:01:00 -0700 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org> wrote:
I've thought a bit about making a single installer that can offer the option of 32-bit/64-bit at install time, but I don't actually think it's that big a problem to deserve that much effort as a solution.
Perhaps we should add non-button text below the button saying "Get the 64-bit version"?
Or perhaps the 32-bit installer could detect a 64-bit system and add an info box at the beginning?
That's not a bad idea. Needs a bpo issue, but shouldn't be too hard to do. And it should be safe to backport for 3.7.1, as there's no real behaviour change. Cheers, Steve
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org> wrote:
On 09Jul2018 0922, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 09:01:00 -0700 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org> wrote:
I've thought a bit about making a single installer that can offer the option of 32-bit/64-bit at install time, but I don't actually think it's that big a problem to deserve that much effort as a solution.
Perhaps we should add non-button text below the button saying "Get the 64-bit version"?
Or perhaps the 32-bit installer could detect a 64-bit system and add an info box at the beginning?
That's not a bad idea. Needs a bpo issue, but shouldn't be too hard to do. And it should be safe to backport for 3.7.1, as there's no real behaviour change.
And if the 64-bit installer could detect 32-bit systems and explain to users that they got the wrong version and direct them to the correct one, that would help anyone who does get confused by the 64-bit installer becoming more prominent. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
On 9 July 2018 at 17:01, Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org> wrote:
On 09Jul2018 0803, Cosimo Lupo wrote:
If one goes to httWhps://www.python.org/downloads <https://www.python.org/downloads> from a Windows browser, the default download URL is for the 32-bit installer instead of the 64-bit one. I wonder why is this still the case? Shouldn't we encourage new Windows users (who may not even know the distinction between the two architectures) to use the 64-bit version of Python, since most likely they can?
I agree, I'd rather see the 64-bit version be more accessible.
The difficulty is that they *definitely* can use the 32-bit version, and those few who are on older machines or older installs of Windows may not understand why the link we provide didn't work for them.
From the various telemetry I've seen (and I work at Microsoft, so I have better access than most :) ), there is still enough 32-bit Windows out there that I'm not confident enough with "most likely". I haven't checked any location data (not even sure if we've got it), but I'd guess that there's higher 32-bit usage among less privileged countries and people.
I'm happy to go with your research on whether the 32-bit version should be the obvious choice, but I don't think that means we have to hide the 64-bit version as much as we do.
I've thought a bit about making a single installer that can offer the option of 32-bit/64-bit at install time, but I don't actually think it's that big a problem to deserve that much effort as a solution.
I agree, having 2 versions of the installer seems fine to me.
Perhaps we should add non-button text below the button saying "Get the 64-bit version"?
Why not just have a second button, "Download Python 3.7.0 (64-bit)" alongside or below the "Download Python 3.7.0" button? People who don't know the difference will just ignore it, people who do will be able to choose straight from the main download page. Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Python-Dev <python-dev-bounces+tritium- list=sdamon.com@python.org> On Behalf Of Paul Moore
Why not just have a second button, "Download Python 3.7.0 (64-bit)" alongside or below the "Download Python 3.7.0" button? People who don't know the difference will just ignore it, people who do will be able to choose straight from the main download page.
I think this is the solution. * If you don't know your architecture, 32-bit will mostly work so should remain the default (I say most, not all, since there are windows versions that run on ARM, but I think you can only install software through the store on those anyways.) * It's not exposed in the download drop down at all that x64 editions exist for those who know they want it. The drop down is wide enough to support a second download button.
Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/tritium- list%40sdamon.com
On 09.07.2018 19:01, Steve Dower wrote:
On 09Jul2018 0803, Cosimo Lupo wrote:
If one goes to httWhps://www.python.org/downloads <https://www.python.org/downloads> from a Windows browser, the default download URL is for the 32-bit installer instead of the 64-bit one. I wonder why is this still the case? Shouldn't we encourage new Windows users (who may not even know the distinction between the two architectures) to use the 64-bit version of Python, since most likely they can?
The difficulty is that they *definitely* can use the 32-bit version, and those few who are on older machines or older installs of Windows may not understand why the link we provide didn't work for them.
From the various telemetry I've seen (and I work at Microsoft, so I have better access than most :) ), there is still enough 32-bit Windows out there that I'm not confident enough with "most likely". I haven't checked any location data (not even sure if we've got it), but I'd guess that there's higher 32-bit usage among less privileged countries and people.
I've thought a bit about making a single installer that can offer the option of 32-bit/64-bit at install time, but I don't actually think it's that big a problem to deserve that much effort as a solution.
Perhaps we should add non-button text below the button saying "Get the 64-bit version"?
Maybe infer the bitness from User-Agent instead. This seems to be the trend among official sites in general.
Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/vano%40mail.mipt.ru
On 09Jul2018 0927, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
On 09.07.2018 19:01, Steve Dower wrote:
Perhaps we should add non-button text below the button saying "Get the 64-bit version"?
Maybe infer the bitness from User-Agent instead. This seems to be the trend among official sites in general.
I'm not into creating that much work for someone else, since I'm certainly not going to be the one making this change. Adding static text or a second button (as Paul suggested) is fine by me. But I don't want to start receiving bugs (or more likely, I don't want webmaster to start receiving emails) saying that the download is broken because someone who didn't think got the incompatible version. Cheers, Steve
2018-07-09 18:01 GMT+02:00 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org>:
The difficulty is that they *definitely* can use the 32-bit version, and those few who are on older machines or older installs of Windows may not understand why the link we provide didn't work for them.
Let's say that only 10% of users still use 32-bit version. If they download a default 64-bit binary, I'm quite sure that running the binary will emit an error no? Such users should be used to such error, and be able to get the 64-bit version, no? Victor
On 11.07.2018 1:41, Victor Stinner wrote:
2018-07-09 18:01 GMT+02:00 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org>:
The difficulty is that they *definitely* can use the 32-bit version, and those few who are on older machines or older installs of Windows may not understand why the link we provide didn't work for them. Let's say that only 10% of users still use 32-bit version. If they download a default 64-bit binary, I'm quite sure that running the binary will emit an error no? Such users should be used to such error, and be able to get the 64-bit version, no?
Attached the image of what happens. The message is: "One or more issues caused the setup to fail. Please fix the issues and the retry setup. For more information see the log file <hypelink>. 0x80070661 - This installation package is not supported by this processor type. Contact your product vendor." Pretty descriptive in my book.
Victor _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/vano%40mail.mipt.ru
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 05:14:34AM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
On 11.07.2018 1:41, Victor Stinner wrote:
2018-07-09 18:01 GMT+02:00 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org>:
The difficulty is that they *definitely* can use the 32-bit version, and those few who are on older machines or older installs of Windows may not understand why the link we provide didn't work for them.
I think Steve's comment is right on the money. Although professional programmers should be a bit more technically competent than the average user, many are just hobbiest programmers, or school kids who are just as clueless as the average user since they *are* average users.
Let's say that only 10% of users still use 32-bit version. If they download a default 64-bit binary, I'm quite sure that running the binary will emit an error no? Such users should be used to such error, and be able to get the 64-bit version, no?
That's a lot of assumptions there. Here are a few things which might break those assumptions: - inexperienced users who haven't installed much software; - or who don't know that 32- versus 64-bit is a thing; - conservative users who don't install much software aside from using their vendor's official packages; - users who install from app stores which automatically detect the right version of the installer so they don't need to think about it (how do app stores handle this issue?); - or those who expect the default installer to work by default, so long as they pick the right OS (Windows or Mac). I don't remember what CPU my PC has, and when I can't be bothered to look it up, I always go for the default install option expecting that it ought to work regardless of whether I have a 32- or 64-bit OS. So far that's a strategy that has never done me wrong :-)
Attached the image of what happens. The message is:
"One or more issues caused the setup to fail. Please fix the issues and the retry setup. For more information see the log file <hypelink>.
0x80070661 - This installation package is not supported by this processor type. Contact your product vendor."
Pretty descriptive in my book.
Are you being sarcastic? I would expect that "this processor type" refers to incompatible chip sets like ARM versus Intel, not the 32- versus 64-bitness of the operating system. And I certainly wouldn't associate the problem: "I downloaded and ran the wrong installer" with the appropriate solution: "I need to hunt for a 32-bit installer, rather than using the default" given that error message. -- Steve
On 11 July 2018 at 06:39, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 05:14:34AM +0300, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
On 11.07.2018 1:41, Victor Stinner wrote:
2018-07-09 18:01 GMT+02:00 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org>:
The difficulty is that they *definitely* can use the 32-bit version, and those few who are on older machines or older installs of Windows may not understand why the link we provide didn't work for them.
I think Steve's comment is right on the money.
Although professional programmers should be a bit more technically competent than the average user, many are just hobbiest programmers, or school kids who are just as clueless as the average user since they *are* average users.
I'm perfectly happy for the default installer that you get from the obvious first choice button (the one that says "Python 3.7.0") on the "Downloads" drop-down to be the 32-bit installer[1]. But making people who know they want the 64-bit installer click through "View the full list of downloads" -> "Release 3.7.0", scroll down to the bottom of a page that looks more like a release note if you just glance at the top, and find "Windows x86-64 executable installer" is a bit much. And the convoluted route is a nightmare for people like me to explain when I'm trying to tell people who I know should be getting the 64-bit version, how to do so. Which is why I'd like to see a bit more choice on that initial dropdown. Just a second button for the 64-bit version is enough - for the full lists the set of links to the left of the dropdown is fine. Paul [1] Although I strongly dislike the fact that there's no indication at all in that dropdown that what you're getting *is* the 32 bit version, short of hovering over the link and knowing the naming convention of the installers :-(.
Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev writes:
"One or more issues caused the setup to fail. Please fix the issues and the retry setup. For more information see the log file <hypelink>.
0x80070661 - This installation package is not supported by this processor type. Contact your product vendor."
Pretty descriptive in my book.
Experience shows that's definitely not descriptive enough for my university's students (and starting from AY 2021 we're moving to Python 3 as the university-wide programming course language, yay!) They have no idea that "processor type" means "word size", or what alternative package to look for. Sometimes they take the "contact vendor" wording to mean "package is broken". I don't think the Japanese or Chinese students will have 32-bit machines (haven't seen one among my advisees since March 2016), but we do get some students from less wealthy countries who may be using older machines. So I think it would be really nice if the installer detects the wordsize mismatch, and issues an explicit message like This package is intended for a 64-it machine, but yours is a 32-bit machine. Please download and install the package specifically for 32-bit machines instead.
On 7/10/2018 11:14 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev writes:
"One or more issues caused the setup to fail. Please fix the issues and the retry setup. For more information see the log file <hypelink>.
0x80070661 - This installation package is not supported by this processor type. Contact your product vendor."
Pretty descriptive in my book.
Experience shows that's definitely not descriptive enough for my university's students (and starting from AY 2021 we're moving to Python 3 as the university-wide programming course language, yay!) They have no idea that "processor type" means "word size", or what alternative package to look for. Sometimes they take the "contact vendor" wording to mean "package is broken". I don't think the Japanese or Chinese students will have 32-bit machines (haven't seen one among my advisees since March 2016), but we do get some students from less wealthy countries who may be using older machines.
So I think it would be really nice if the installer detects the wordsize mismatch, and issues an explicit message like
This package is intended for a 64-it machine, but yours is a 32-bit machine.
Please download and install the package specifically for 32-bit machines instead. Which would be far, far better, regardless of which bitness(es) of installer is(are) displayed (prominently) on the web site.
Why don't we check the architecture using js and provide the appropriate version?
On 18Jun2019 0309, smartmanoj42857@gmail.com wrote:
why is not 64-bit installer the default download link for Windows?
Because there are still 32-bit operating systems out there, and the 32-bit version of Python will work just fine on both 32 and 64-bit Windows (and will use less memory than the 64-bit version). The version we publish to the Microsoft Store is only available in 64-bit, as it has a much higher minimum OS version requirement and the proportion of 32-bit installs drops off dramatically. (That download link was removed from the website while the PSF figures out whether they are allowed to link to it.)
Why don't we check the architecture using js and provide the appropriate version?
I'm sure the team working on https://github.com/python/pythondotorg would love to have more contributors :) From my point of view, I want the link to be the same on any machine, so I'm quite happy with it being static. Cheers, Steve
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:09:59AM -0000, smartmanoj42857@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't we check the architecture using js and provide the appropriate version?
Because the downloading computer is not necessary the installation target. Oleg. -- Oleg Broytman https://phdru.name/ phd@phdru.name Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN.
Oleg Broytman writes:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:09:59AM -0000, smartmanoj42857@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't we check the architecture using js and provide the appropriate version?
Because the downloading computer is not necessary the installation target.
Sure, but (a) it's a good bet, and (b) somebody downloading to install on a different machine is more likely to know what they're doing and be conscious of issues of platform. It's a common practice nowadays, probably for that reason.
On 18Jun2019 1025, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Oleg Broytman writes:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:09:59AM -0000, smartmanoj42857@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't we check the architecture using js and provide the appropriate version?
Because the downloading computer is not necessary the installation target.
Sure, but (a) it's a good bet, and (b) somebody downloading to install on a different machine is more likely to know what they're doing and be conscious of issues of platform.
Equally, someone more conscious of the issues will know to go and get the 64-bit version if they explicitly want it. But for practically everyone the 32-bit version will be just fine. There's no definitive answer to this, which means regardless of which decision we make we will have to continue to explain it over and over again. Right now, status quo and the lack of a volunteer to update the web site means that sticking with the 32-bit link is easier to explain than having to figure out why a particular machine was offered a particular download when it is not correct. Cheers, Steve
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:37 PM Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org> wrote:
On 18Jun2019 1025, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Oleg Broytman writes:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:09:59AM -0000, smartmanoj42857@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't we check the architecture using js and provide the appropriate version?
Because the downloading computer is not necessary the installation target.
Sure, but (a) it's a good bet, and (b) somebody downloading to install on a different machine is more likely to know what they're doing and be conscious of issues of platform.
Equally, someone more conscious of the issues will know to go and get the 64-bit version if they explicitly want it. But for practically everyone the 32-bit version will be just fine.
There's no definitive answer to this, which means regardless of which decision we make we will have to continue to explain it over and over again. Right now, status quo and the lack of a volunteer to update the web site means that sticking with the 32-bit link is easier to explain than having to figure out why a particular machine was offered a particular download when it is not correct.
I just posted a webmaster reply about just such an inquiry. As one of the people who get to do the explaining, it would be nice if we (not the devs) could figure out some way of getting people to the download they want. The lack of volunteers to update the web site content is disappointing, but a fact of open source life. Personally I'd have thought that the PSF was now spending enough on infrastructure that it might be able to afford someone to maintain the content - especially those areas that most impact the dev team. I imagine some assistance for release managers would also be helpful. Is it worth trying to make this happen? regards Steve
On 19Jun2019 0124, Steve Holden wrote:
I just posted a webmaster reply about just such an inquiry. As one of the people who get to do the explaining, it would be nice if we (not the devs) could figure out some way of getting people to the download they want.
Probably the easiest thing to do is to add a static link below the big download button that goes to the current release page and is labelled "64-bit and other downloads". Right now, the only alternative is to go to the full list of releases. Cheers, Steve
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:36:33 -0700 Steve Dower <steve.dower@python.org> wrote:
On 18Jun2019 1025, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Oleg Broytman writes:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:09:59AM -0000, smartmanoj42857@gmail.com wrote:
Why don't we check the architecture using js and provide the appropriate version?
Because the downloading computer is not necessary the installation target.
Sure, but (a) it's a good bet, and (b) somebody downloading to install on a different machine is more likely to know what they're doing and be conscious of issues of platform.
Equally, someone more conscious of the issues will know to go and get the 64-bit version if they explicitly want it.
The main download button doesn't say anything about being 32-bit. So unless you *know* that you're going to be given the 32-bit version, you'll blindly download and install it. When coming from a non-Windows OS it is weird and unexpected to be given a 32-bit version by default. (this just happened to me, incidentally) Regards Antoine.
participants (14)
-
Alex Walters -
Antoine Pitrou -
Cosimo Lupo -
Glenn Linderman -
Ivan Pozdeev -
Nathaniel Smith -
Oleg Broytman -
Paul Moore -
smartmanoj42857＠gmail.com -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Steve Dower -
Steve Holden -
Steven D'Aprano -
Victor Stinner