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!

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.

Philippe Riondel 

Hi Philippe,

I love Trados too and have been using it since well before Studio was introduced.

I have very few crashes, error messages or unexplainable slowness - possibly because I work with LookAhead and Fragment Matching turned off. I'm not saying they cause issues but rather that there is no point having them turned on unless you need them, which I don't, and whatever is causing the issues seems to not be a problem without them. Turning off LookAhead on its own makes a difference to stability.

I also periodically perform a Windows Repair on both Studio and MultiTerm as well as on other programs, especially after any software has had a major update, particularly Windows.

People sometimes get cross with me when I point out any or all the above as a solution, but these simple things mean Trados runs smoothly for me... even a first beta version while I'm testing it, so much so that I usually do all my work in the beta versions.

I'm not saying I don't think a 64-bit version is a good idea. Indeed, it's a logical step forwards but I'm working happily with this excellent piece of kit just as it is for now...

All the best,

Ali

The second last part of this post addresses what bothers me more than the lack of a 64-bit version (even though I wish for it) : 

"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."