How was this posted in 2017, and Trados is still 32-bit? I prefer Trados over other programs in most regards, but that SDL/RWS can't be bothered to respond to what customers have been asking for for years is frustrating. 64-bit would make a difference when working with massive files.

RWS have responded and explained many times why we have not moved to 64-bit yet.  Let me try again... imagine you have a car (let's call it Car A) with a standard 4-cylinder engine, which represents a 32-bit software application.  This car is designed to work efficiently and smoothly with this particular engine, providing a good balance of performance and fuel efficiency.  Now, let's say there's another car (Car B) with a powerful 8-cylinder engine, representing a 64-bit software application.  Car B is designed to utilize the power of its engine, leading to better performance and a more enjoyable driving experience.

Now, if you were to take the 8-cylinder engine from Car B and try to fit it into Car A without making any other modifications, it wouldn't make much sense.  The engine would not fit properly, and even if you managed to get it in, Car A would not be able to make the most out of the new engine's capabilities.  The car's transmission, suspension, and other systems would not be optimized to handle the extra power, leading to a poor driving experience and potential damage to the car.

Similarly, creating a 64-bit version of a software application without optimizing the core code to support it can lead to inefficiencies and poor performance.  The 64-bit architecture allows for larger memory addresses and better processing capabilities, but if the core code is not designed to take advantage of these features, the application may not perform any better than its 32-bit counterpart, and may even suffer from compatibility issues or increased resource usage. In some cases, it might even perform worse than the original 32-bit version.

Therefore, it's essential to ensure that the core code of a software application is optimized to support the 64-bit architecture before creating a 64-bit version. This will enable the application to fully utilize the benefits of the 64-bit platform, leading to better performance and a more efficient use of system resources.

So you can criticise us for not doing this faster if it helps you, but please rest assured that we get a little bit closer to delivering this improvement with all the right enhancements in place to take advantage of it with every release.  I cannot tell you when this will happen as I am not a developer, nor do I work for the development teams.  However, I do know that there is work progressing with every release and we have explained this many times, even in this thread.  So at least criticise us for the right reasons.  It may also help to read everything before making comments like this.

Good analogy Paul!

The analogy is pleasant, but the issue is that the statement "This car is designed to work efficiently and smoothly with this particular engine, providing a good balance of performance and fuel efficiency" is not that true. There are too many crashes, error messages and unexplainable slowness. And anyone who knows a bit about computing knows that a part of those is linked to memory insufficiency, that is the 32-bit architecture.

It is not like if 64-bit systems had just emerged. 64-bits is in the landscape for more than 15 years! That is before the first version of Studio. The move to 64 bits should be planned for years, since the lack of free RAM is highly predictable in our job, when we have to handle large files – moreover if you use the QuickMerge feature with such large files, and several enormous memories.

My perception, as a 14 year user of Studio, is that development teams are more focused on developing new features, such as cloud or automatic translation, than on fixing known bugs or inefficiencies. Some error messages are still displaying, despite numerous updates. If you allow me to propose an analogy too, it is like adding storeys to a building while foundations issues are still to be remedied to. 

I have the feeling I pay $200 more every year, for new features totally useless for me (and likely most freelancers), while nothing is done for some issues we undergo year after year. I wonder what benefit I can actually expect from my next $200.

I may sound harsh, but it is firstly because I love Trados and its design, could not imagine working with anything else and just dream of it running really smoothly.

Well-said! I couldn't agree more.

To stay with the car analogy, we could also put it this way: if the large, big and mighty car manufacturer which ranks among the best in the industry does not come up with a new design of the car body in 7+ years to fit in the powerful 8-cylinder engine (which is now standard on the car market) could it be that they aren't allocating the necessary ressource to this improvement?

And if everyone understands that it's pretty useless to have a car with a powerful engine but damaged systems around it, it still appears to me fair enough for users (drivers?) to place such comments showing RWS, that translators do need (and wait for) such a powerful engine.

Certainly are RWS doing their best but I'd like to reformulate – quite provocative, I admit – the first sentence of your response which can be used interchangeably with the the same kind of arguments: "Translators have responded and explaind many times why they still need studio to be moved to 64-bit". This does not bring anyone further.

Instead, it could be of great interest to many people to be kept informed about the progress of the new design and, more importantly, about the time line (may be in one of the numerous newsletters Studio users and afficionados receive).

Keeping the same automotive track: in Canada , the traffic signals installed during road construction works come with a display indicating drivers how long it will take until they can use the single lane road section: everyone knows when it's going to happen and everyone stay patient.

Thank you, Phillipe and Christine, for your input and constructive criticism. We do understand the concerns you've raised about our software and the need for a 64-bit version, which we don't disagree with and if it really was that simple we would have definitely done it by now.  We take your concerns, and criticism seriously, and as I have tried many times to explain we are aware of the problems and are working towards being able to deliver that transition to 64-bit in the most effective way we can.
Providing regular updates on progress for a development team dealing with numerous enhancements and other work can be challenging due to prioritisation, frequent changes in priorities, time and resource constraints, confidentiality concerns, and the risk of creating unrealistic expectations. Typically we maintain transparency through release notes and blog posts as our preferred mechanisms for keeping users informed without overwhelming them or detracting from the development team's focus on improving the software.  We also try our best to discuss anything with you in this community as openly as we can and we will continue to do so.
But thank you for your feedback and for your continued support of our software. We are committed to delivering a product that meets your needs and exceeds your expectations, and we are grateful for your understanding as we work towards that shared goal of an efficient 64-bit Trados Studio.

Thank you, Phillipe and Christine, for your input and constructive criticism. We do understand the concerns you've raised about our software and the need for a 64-bit version, which we don't disagree with and if it really was that simple we would have definitely done it by now.  We take your concerns, and criticism seriously, and as I have tried many times to explain we are aware of the problems and are working towards being able to deliver that transition to 64-bit in the most effective way we can.
Providing regular updates on progress for a development team dealing with numerous enhancements and other work can be challenging due to prioritisation, frequent changes in priorities, time and resource constraints, confidentiality concerns, and the risk of creating unrealistic expectations. Typically we maintain transparency through release notes and blog posts as our preferred mechanisms for keeping users informed without overwhelming them or detracting from the development team's focus on improving the software.  We also try our best to discuss anything with you in this community as openly as we can and we will continue to do so.
But thank you for your feedback and for your continued support of our software. We are committed to delivering a product that meets your needs and exceeds your expectations, and we are grateful for your understanding as we work towards that shared goal of an efficient 64-bit Trados Studio.

You told the word, Paul : priorities... ;-)
Thanks for your answer. Be sure we will eagerly read everything about those future developments. 

Yeah... And we're going to have to wait another 6 years for the exact same comment later on. We've heard about 64-bit Trados Studio for a couple of years now. And it always is several years ahead, you're still working on it, considering it, not disagreeing with our (users') opinions. And yet new Studio version get useless features that almost nobody uses, and the core problems are not being addressed.

As a user that has spent close to EUR 80k on your software so far (various Professional and Freelance licenses + 3 versions of GS), I declare that I will not be spending anything more until the software is 64-bit. I have already purchased a memoQ license for myself and I am evaluating it. As soon as I deem it better and more reliable that Studio, I will make a switch for the whole company. I have had ENOUGH waiting and being lied to about your plans to update the software. Be honest, for once - have you really been working on a 64-bit version or you just tell that to people to placate them, while you do everything to rump up your bottomline, without incurring any additional costs for the "unneeded" 64-bit version? This technology is almost 20 years old and it is a JOKE that Studio does not utilize it.

I am especially mad today, because only today my Studio crashed or simply closed down without saving my work, like 8 or 9 times. And it is just 1 pm here. I am working on large XML files that I NEED open simultaneously in order not to have to pre-translate and then recheck every single cross-file repetition that I have, and Studio is actively making my work almost impossible. And that is my everyday situation with Studio. No more euro will be spent on Studio unless it goes 64-bit and finally can use my 64GB or RAM instead of crashing at 3-4 Gigs :/