Poll: Should Windows 9/Threshold be X64 only?

[taim]

For the 89 people that voted yes disable all 32-bit services and don't use any 32-bit apps as an experiment and see if that changes your opinion. I got my system down to Origin and one of the Google crash handlers being 32-bit, if you can do better than that and can do the things you could do with 32-bit apps then more power to your vote, if not maybe rethink your vote.

[Luc2k]

For the 89 people that voted yes disable all 32-bit services and don't use any 32-bit apps as an experiment and see if that changes your opinion. I got my system down to Origin and one of the Google crash handlers being 32-bit, if you can do better than that and can do the things you could do with 32-bit apps then more power to your vote, if not maybe rethink your vote.

Most of them didn't even read the first post and you expect them to go through that?

[taim]

Most of them didn't even read the first post and you expect them to go through that?

Well for the few that replied saying they'd be fine with WoW dropped.

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

It's way too early to release a version that doesn't support 32 bit applications.

[taim]

Maybe revisit it for Windows 10, with the pattern of Vista=few users, 7=many users, 8=few users, if they end up failing with Windows 9 it'll mean most users will be two major versions behind for longer than Microsoft would like. Microsoft usually flip flops between stabilizing changes/small tweaks and then major features/compatibility changes.

[PGHammer]

It doesn't have anything to do with comfort. A consumer should not be forced to upgrade to a new version of something just because someone else decides it's a "better" version. A consumer who has a whole library of software, none of which is currently 64bit has no incentive at all to buy a 64bit only OS. A person who is running a 32bit software application that does everything they want has no reason to upgrade to a 64bit version just because 64bit makes it better. As long as application developers can't show consumers compelling capabilities that can ONLY be done on a 64bit systems there is no reason for things go 64bit. The vast majority of consumer software has no need for ANYTHING (not just memory capacity) that 64bit provides. Consumers do simple things like read email, message friends, browse the web, etc. these things aren't intensive enough to need 64bit. Video/Photo editing is but most consumers don't do that, look at what Photoshop costs. Servers software needs it but again, it's been 64bit for years already. Games are just beginning to need it and that's only because consoles are now REQUIRING it.

 

I'm not sure what brought up the 16bit. As I said to go fully 64bit MS needs most (not all) of it's customers to have most (not all) of their existing software 64bit. That's already happened with 16bit, the vast majority of consumer software is currently 32bit. There are always going to be some stragglers and at some point you do have to leave them behind. The vast majority of average Windows users likely don't have a single 64bit application already though, so it's WAY too soon to drop 32bit compatibility (It's not too soon to stop offering 32bit versions of the OS though, they just need to keep WOW64 for a few more cycles). If you offer 64bit software alongside 32bit you split your community. It's two different products you have to maintain, possibly with incompatible plug-ins/add-ons and again if your app has no real need for anything 64bit provides over 32bit why would you even bother?

Even if you develop a 64bit version too then you need people to pay for it to support your development which again forces users to upgrade if their new computer won't run the old 32bit version anymore. People want to be able to run the software they already have, sure if it's ancient and 16bit that may not be possible but since apps are still mostly 32bit now if you buy a program today you're going to be pretty upset if at the start of next year when Windows 9 comes out it won't run it and you need to pay again for a 64bit version.

Also a lot of consumers runs software that works just fine for them that the developers no longer support. Maybe the developer isn't even in business anymore. The software works fine though and does what they need but isn't 64bit so by forcing 64bit only then you leave them with nowhere to go since no one is there to update the app. Again this is a necessary evil if the thing is ancient like in the case of 16bit software but again 32bit software is still the vast majority of what is released even today so dropping support for it is VERY premature.

The problem is that for that to happen, both users and developers need incentive to go there.  Unfortunately, as long as WoW64 is there, what IS the incentive?

 

Then explain that there are FREE x64 applications (VLC and Waterfox, to name just two).  Even for *paid* applications, there IS the Microsoft Model - the license covers your choice of bitness.  (This model has been used with Windows itself since Vista, and has carried over to Office.)

 

That is, in fact, WHY the debate needs to happen - moribundity is encroaching on Windows once again.

 

WoW64 is good enough to have triggered a spate of crossgrades - x64 is now the default Windows in most cases; surprisingly, x64 is the leader in Office licensing in the two versions since it launched (2010 and 2013) - in other words, the OS base is decidedly there.

 

The problem is in the application space - not necessarily the GAME space (which is getting there, especially outside of Steam).

WoW64 was originally supposed to be a *stopgap* until the OS base caught up enough to allow x64 applications to be developed.  Now that the OS base has caught up, it is SUPPOSED to be able to go away so that truly NATIVE x64 applications can be created.

 

However, what am I hearing instead?  "Oh noes - they want to take away our crutches!"  (Even though our "ankles" are cast-free, and have been since Windows 7 - which is, oddly enough, the SECOND Microsoft OS where x64 is the majority; Vista, much-maligned as it was, led the way.)

 

Yes - WoW64 has become a crutch.  (Yes; I use it myself - however, I use it knowing full well what it is.)  Being able to actually WALK bears hobbling on crutches any day - limited mobility - which a reliance on crutches definitely is - flat out bites.

 

For archival compression, I use 7-Zip and WinRAR - both of which are available as x64-native applications - instead of Corel's WinZip - which is not.

 

The ONLY time I use x32 software is where/when an x64-native alternative is non-existent.  (For the record, VirtualBox is now installed AS an x64-native application on any x64 iteration of Windows - the only other non-bare-meta/x64-native hypervisor is Hyper-V.)

 

Yes - I get that resistance is strong, and the battle (for now) likely won't be won - however, the debate is overdue - it SHOULD have been happening after the first year of Windows 7 since it launched.

[PGHammer]

It doesn't have anything to do with comfort. A consumer should not be forced to upgrade to a new version of something just because someone else decides it's a "better" version. A consumer who has a whole library of software, none of which is currently 64bit has no incentive at all to buy a 64bit only OS. A person who is running a 32bit software application that does everything they want has no reason to upgrade to a 64bit version just because 64bit makes it better. As long as application developers can't show consumers compelling capabilities that can ONLY be done on a 64bit systems there is no reason for things go 64bit. The vast majority of consumer software has no need for ANYTHING (not just memory capacity) that 64bit provides. Consumers do simple things like read email, message friends, browse the web, etc. these things aren't intensive enough to need 64bit. Video/Photo editing is but most consumers don't do that, look at what Photoshop costs. Servers software needs it but again, it's been 64bit for years already. Games are just beginning to need it and that's only because consoles are now REQUIRING it.

 

I'm not sure what brought up the 16bit. As I said to go fully 64bit MS needs most (not all) of it's customers to have most (not all) of their existing software 64bit. That's already happened with 16bit, the vast majority of consumer software is currently 32bit. There are always going to be some stragglers and at some point you do have to leave them behind. The vast majority of average Windows users likely don't have a single 64bit application already though, so it's WAY too soon to drop 32bit compatibility (It's not too soon to stop offering 32bit versions of the OS though, they just need to keep WOW64 for a few more cycles). If you offer 64bit software alongside 32bit you split your community. It's two different products you have to maintain, possibly with incompatible plug-ins/add-ons and again if your app has no real need for anything 64bit provides over 32bit why would you even bother?

Even if you develop a 64bit version too then you need people to pay for it to support your development which again forces users to upgrade if their new computer won't run the old 32bit version anymore. People want to be able to run the software they already have, sure if it's ancient and 16bit that may not be possible but since apps are still mostly 32bit now if you buy a program today you're going to be pretty upset if at the start of next year when Windows 9 comes out it won't run it and you need to pay again for a 64bit version.

Also a lot of consumers runs software that works just fine for them that the developers no longer support. Maybe the developer isn't even in business anymore. The software works fine though and does what they need but isn't 64bit so by forcing 64bit only then you leave them with nowhere to go since no one is there to update the app. Again this is a necessary evil if the thing is ancient like in the case of 16bit software but again 32bit software is still the vast majority of what is released even today so dropping support for it is VERY premature.

Who said anything about *force*?  I didn't - and if the application in question is free, the question of force becomes rather moot.

You are basically saying to "leave well enough alone" - the result of THAT is "meh".  Too MUCH "meh" and you start shedding developers, then shedding users, and you have a dead OS on your hands.  (That is what happened to BeOS - and why Blackberry is shrinking to irrelevancy - too much meh.)

Since no less than Microsoft Vista, x64 has led x32 in terms of sales - that is despite the cost difference being none.

Since Office 2010, x64 and x32 have been sold side by side; like Windows itself, the cost difference between the bitnesses is none.

 

In other words, the ONLY reason that x32 applications are around is to feed the minority of users that refused to move.  If you have XP and earlier users among your customers, this makes sense - it's where x32 still has a major lead.  (I stated that earlier in the thread.)  However, if you are targeting Vista, or even 7, and staying x32, you are letting the minority lock you in that x32 cage. For a line-of-business (vertical market) niche application, this may make sense - however, for general distribution, this model makes less sense than a three-headed Santa.

[Praetor]

A version of Windows that runs hardly any apps?  Great.

 

You have RT for that...oh wait.

 

Windows 64 only resulted very well, just look at Windows XP 64 bit Edition (for Itanium CPUs)...oh wait, it didn't because a Windows 64 bit only was dumb back then and it still is because the amount of software that still is 32 bit (and even 16 bit) is huge, both in consumer and enterprise sides. Sure, in a couple of years when 64 bit software is the norm then it will make sense to have a 64 bit only Windows but until then, NO (possibly then we will be using 128 bit CPUs)

[+Asmodai MVC]

The problem is that for that to happen, both users and developers need incentive to go there.  Unfortunately, as long as WoW64 is there, what IS the incentive?

If users have no need for 64bit then there is no reason to upgrade to it. You don't upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. The incentive should be whatever you can do with 64bit that you can't on 32bit. If users don't want whatever that is then they shouldn't go 64bit.

Then explain that there are FREE x64 applications (VLC and Waterfox, to name just two).

Those two are open source projects, I'm talking about commercial software. On Linux and such software is commonly distributed via source code so the bitness doesn't matter because you (or your packagers) just grab the source and compile whatever you need. Commercial software doesn't work that way.

Even for *paid* applications, there IS the Microsoft Model - the license covers your choice of bitness.  (This model has been used with Windows itself since Vista, and has carried over to Office.)

Who cares if the license covers your choice of bitness if you don't want to upgrade at all. If you have a 32bit-only version 5 of a piece of software and MS releases Windows 9 as 64bit only then sure whoever wrote that software could make a version 6 and give you the choice of bitness. What if you don't want version 6 though, if it offers nothing you need to merit the cost of upgrading. Now scale that across every application you have because none of your current applications happen to be 64bit. The vast majority of people aren't going to buy Windows 9 if they have to turn around and buy new versions of ALL of their commercial software because Windows 9 won't run any of their existing 32bit stuff. Even if they wanted to do that a lot of people couldn't afford to upgrade everything they have at once. It needs to be a gradual process over time.

WoW64 is good enough to have triggered a spate of crossgrades - x64 is now the default Windows in most cases;

x64 is the most popular version of Windows ONLY because of WOW64, take that away and your sales will disappear.

surprisingly, x64 is the leader in Office licensing in the two versions since it launched (2010 and 2013) - in other words, the OS base is decidedly there.

Do you have a source for this? In my experience Office, because of it's large 3rd party plug-in community is still largely 32bit. I personally got 64bit Office 2010 on day one but work and most people I talk to are still on 32bit despite having 64bit OSs. I have my doubts that most of 2010 especially is 64bit.

WoW64 was originally supposed to be a *stopgap* until the OS base caught up enough to allow x64 applications to be developed.  Now that the OS base has caught up, it is SUPPOSED to be able to go away so that truly NATIVE x64 applications can be created.

Source? I don't believe that one bit. 16bit support was dropped because x64 CPUs don't work in 16bit mode anymore not because MS arbitrarily decided it was time to go. If the hardware supports it MS tries to support it as well and x64 was designed SPECIFICALLY to maintain compatibility with 32bit, AMD crushed Intel's superior IA64 64bit designs because IA64, while superior on 64bit code performed poorly on 32bit code compared to AMDs x64 implementation. MS is not and should not drop support of 32bit on hardware designed to run it.

Yes - WoW64 has become a crutch.  (Yes; I use it myself - however, I use it knowing full well what it is.)  Being able to actually WALK bears hobbling on crutches any day - limited mobility - which a reliance on crutches definitely is - flat out bites.

You seem to believe that 64bit is better just by being 64bit, it's not. People are actually walking just fine, they don't need 64bit only, it has no value to them.

 

For archival compression, I use 7-Zip and WinRAR - both of which are available as x64-native applications - instead of Corel's WinZip - which is not

 

The ONLY time I use x32 software is where/when an x64-native alternative is non-existent.  (For the record, VirtualBox is now installed AS an x64-native application on any x64 iteration of Windows - the only other non-bare-meta/x64-native hypervisor is Hyper-V.)

.

Who cares what you or I use? We aren't representative of the general public. The general public doesn't need to upgrade just because you or MS said so. They need to upgrade when what is being offered is worth it TO THEM to upgrade to and if developers can't produce that incentive then there is no reason to upgrade. If developers can't find things that 64bit apps can do that 32bit apps can't that the public is willing to pay for then things should stay 32bit. Things don't need to be 64bit just for the sake of being 64bit.

Yes - I get that resistance is strong, and the battle (for now) likely won't be won - however, the debate is overdue - it SHOULD have been happening after the first year of Windows 7 since it launched.

Microsoft provided an OS platform where application developers can choose to make 64bit versions of their apps if they wish. Now it's up to application developers (including Microsoft applications groups) to develop products that can only do what they do on 64bit. If they can't come up with that for a price people are willing to pay then applications should stay 32bit. If they CAN convince not all, but the majority of Windows users to upgrade their applications over time to 64bit then when those upgrades amount to the majority (again not all, you'll always have some stragglers) of software run by the majority if Windows user THEN, and only THEN could MS drop 32bit support. That time is not now and it certainly won't be next year.

[Praetor]

The problem is in the application space - not necessarily the GAME space (which is getting there, especially outside of Steam).

WoW64 was originally supposed to be a *stopgap* until the OS base caught up enough to allow x64 applications to be developed.  Now that the OS base has caught up, it is SUPPOSED to be able to go away so that truly NATIVE x64 applications can be created.

 

And you realize that custom software made for enterprises, either cheap or multimillion dollars, are still made in 32 bits? because in various occasions it can be faster to run then the x64 counterpart of it. It really depends on how it was made, the data structures, algorithms, libraries and such and in some occasions it doesn't not compensate. Also the fact that many business and consumers are still trapped with XP (32bits edition) isn't helping, but the major problem is the apps, not the OS.

[Praetor]

If users have no need for 64bit then there is no reason to upgrade to it. You don't upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. The incentive should be whatever you can do with 64bit that you can't on 32bit. If users don't want whatever that is then they shouldn't go 64bit.

Those two are open source projects, I'm talking about commercial software. On Linux and such software is commonly distributed via source code so the bitness doesn't matter because you (or your packagers) just grab the source and compile whatever you need. Commercial software doesn't work that way.

Do you have a source for this? In my experience Office, because of it's large 3rd party plug-in community is still largely 32bit. I personally got 64bit Office 2010 on day one but work and most people I talk to are still on 32bit despite having 64bit OSs. I have my doubts that most of 2010 especially is 64bit.

 

This. Upgrading for a 64 platform can be quite expensive and, in many cases, the performance increase just isn't enough to justify. Commercial software is expensive and to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading without a major increase of performance isn't happening.

 

In the past i had to upgrade a client of mine from Office 2007 to Office 2010 (all the workstations) because the 64 bit edition of it managed memory not only better, but used a much wider band as well, resulting in a incredible increase of performance, using the same hardware, OS and files. That was the only case i saw that it justified the use of the 64 bits version of Office. Also Microsoft recommends the use of Office 2013 32 bits and it warns that many problems can arise regarding 3rd party plugins that are 32 bit only, if using the 64 bit version of Office 2013 (that's why Office 2013 is, by default, installed in the 32 bit mode and only just before the download one can change the download into the 64 bits version).

[+Asmodai MVC]

Who said anything about *force? I didn't - and if the application in question is free, the question of force becomes rather moot.

I did, and I wasn't talking about application developers. I was talking about the OS developer, Microsoft. If Microsoft released Windows 9 without WoW64 then they would by trying to "force" consumers to move to 64bit instead of convincing them to choose it themselves. Microsoft (and other developers) need to find a way to make consumers CHOOSE 64bit, they need to show them why it's needed, not take away their choice.

In other words, the ONLY reason that x32 applications are around is to feed the minority of users that refused to move.

They don't REFUSE to move, they CHOOSE not to. They CHOOSE not to because developers haven't shown them what 64bit can do that 32bit can't and why then need it. Until developers can do that then they should stay on 32bit. I don't WANT them to stay there, I'm NOT saying "leave well enough alone". I WANT developers to come up with new capabilities that only 64bit can do. Like you I buy 64bit versions of everything I can when it's available but I also recognize that I'm a "techie" and a professional developer and not at all representative of the majority of Windows users. Furthermore I believe in giving people choices, not taking them away. It's not the user base that is failing here in there unwillingness to move to 64bit it's the developers who are failing in their inability to come up with capabilities that only 64bit can do that the user base is willing to pay for.

[PGHammer]

And you realize that custom software made for enterprises, either cheap or multimillion dollars, are still made in 32 bits? because in various occasions it can be faster to run then the x64 counterpart of it. It really depends on how it was made, the data structures, algorithms, libraries and such and in some occasions it doesn't not compensate. Also the fact that many business and consumers are still trapped with XP (32bits edition) isn't helping, but the major problem is the apps, not the OS.

Faster to stay x32, where a quality x64 application, with same-bitness applications and plug-ins?  I'd like to see data on that - Waterfox is not only more stable than Firefox, but has faster performance besides. Rather amusingly, it also uses less memory AND requires fewer threads.  The same is true of IE, and HAS been true of IE since the dual-bitness option appeared.  That is, in fact, why I'm STILL horked off with the plug-in/add-in community - with ALL browsers (and with Office as well - however, the Office add-in/plug-in community IS moving forward, as has Adobe itself).  In fact, Flash Player 15 - the first x64-native Flash Player for x64 Firefox-based browsers - drives the performance AND stability improvements home with a jackhammer - and compared to Firefox.

 

Enterprise/vertical-market software is such a different creature that it needs a separate thread - conservative to the point of being CHICKEN - Kentucky Fried Chicken Original Recipe.  However, I also get the why - I've even said (elsewhere) that enterprise IT decisions are all too often driven by the bean-counters - NOT the needs of the business; it is why I won't even deal with enterprises in my posts in this thread.

 

I am talking entirely about general-purpose applications for everyday commercial and non-commercial use - both paid and free.  At this point, it is still a debate; however, realistically, this debate should have been after Windows 7 and Office 2010 launched.

[Praetor]

Faster to stay x32, where a quality x64 application, with same-bitness applications and plug-ins?  I'd like to see data on that - Waterfox is not only more stable than Firefox, but has faster performance besides. Rather amusingly, it also uses less memory AND requires fewer threads.  The same is true of IE, and HAS been true of IE since the dual-bitness option appeared.  That is, in fact, why I'm STILL horked off with the plug-in/add-in community - with ALL browsers (and with Office as well - however, the Office add-in/plug-in community IS moving forward, as has Adobe itself).  In fact, Flash Player 15 - the first x64-native Flash Player for x64 Firefox-based browsers - drives the performance AND stability improvements home with a jackhammer - and compared to Firefox.

 

Enterprise/vertical-market software is such a different creature that it needs a separate thread - conservative to the point of being CHICKEN - Kentucky Fried Chicken Original Recipe.  However, I also get the why - I've even said (elsewhere) that enterprise IT decisions are all too often driven by the bean-counters - NOT the needs of the business; it is why I won't even deal with enterprises in my posts in this thread.

 

I am talking entirely about general-purpose applications for everyday commercial and non-commercial use - both paid and free.  At this point, it is still a debate; however, realistically, this debate should have been after Windows 7 and Office 2010 launched.

 

while the consumer market i huge, the business side of it is the cash cow for Microsoft; they just won't turn their backs, after past failures like Windows XP 64 bit Edition. And i can fast google some charts, white papers from various software vendors claiming their software, while having better performance comparing to the 32 version, it's negligible, but so can you. It happens more in the business side of software then the consumer market, it's true.

 

not only that but the major problem is that compiling software for a 64 environment results in more money spend into developing, resulting in a price increase for the end software and most of the business just won't choose that version because they won't see the speed increase or other apparent advantages, so software houses just don't create a 64 bit version and don't even certify their software for that version because that is a waste of money and time. Again, i'm not against 64 OS / apps, i'm using 64 bit since Vista but lack of apps, either business or more commercial, drivers and other headaches drives consumers and business away from pure 64 bit environments.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Praetor

[PGHammer]

I did, and I wasn't talking about application developers. I was talking about the OS developer, Microsoft. If Microsoft released Windows 9 without WoW64 then they would by trying to "force" consumers to move to 64bit instead of convincing them to choose it themselves. Microsoft (and other developers) need to find a way to make consumers CHOOSE 64bit, they need to show them why it's needed, not take away their choice.

They don't REFUSE to move, they CHOOSE not to. They CHOOSE not to because developers haven't shown them what 64bit can do that 32bit can't and why then need it. Until developers can do that then they should stay on 32bit. I don't WANT them to stay there, I'm NOT saying "leave well enough alone". I WANT developers to come up with new capabilities that only 64bit can do. Like you I buy 64bit versions of everything I can when it's available but I also recognize that I'm a "techie" and a professional developer and not at all representative of the majority of Windows users. Furthermore I believe in giving people choices, not taking them away. It's not the user base that is failing here in there unwillingness to move to 64bit it's the developers who are failing in their inability to come up with capabilities that only 64bit can do that the user base is willing to pay for.

Choosing not to move IS a refusal to move, and it is especially galling when they are running an x64 OS.  I didn't move to Waterfox from Firefox entirely due to the bitness - Waterfox had to prove itself, just as every application I use does.  It's still around because it has proved itself - period.  I compared Office 2010 x64 vs. x32 - heads-up; I was coming from Office 2007, where no x64 version existed.  I was able to do so because Microsoft does NOT have different prices for different bitnesses - in fact, Microsoft doesn't charge extra for crossgrading.  (Microsoft may be unique among major developers by having no-charge bitness crossgrades.)  It's not all sweetness and light at Microsoft, however - I have criticized them for not having an x64-native version of Skype in this same thread.

I want the developers on Windows to pick up the gauntlet that Microsoft threw down with Office 2010 - the first x64 productivity suite.  The Waterfox development team picked it up - so has the VideoLAN team.  In fact, so have some of EA's developer partners - including PopCap, of all developers.  I have seen what can be done when developers - from the size of Microsoft to the size of the VideoLAN team - set nose to grindstone and write QUALITY x64 software that can, and does, outperform the x32 bitness of the same software - from the same developer - and on the same OS.  And I want LOTS more of it.  That is how x64 applications prove themselves - by beating their x32 competition, and on the user's own OS and hardware.  Most users won't believe it until they see the difference with their own eyeballs - and they shouldn't, either.  I want the chicken choice to be challenged, at least in the non-enterprise space.  And that requires both users AND developers to be willing to take up that gauntlet.

[PGHammer]

while the consumer market i huge, the business side of it is the cash cow for Microsoft; they just won't turn their backs, after past failures like Windows XP 64 bit Edition. And i can fast google some charts, white papers from various software vendors claiming their software, while having better performance comparing to the 32 version, it's negligible, but so can you. It happens more in the business side of software then the consumer market, it's true.

 

not only that but the major problem is that compiling software for a 64 environment results in more money spend into developing, resulting in a price increase for the end software and most of the business just won't choose that version because they won't see the speed increase or other apparent advantages, so software houses just don't create a 64 bit version and don't even certify their software for that version because that is a waste of money and time. Again, i'm not against 64 OS / apps, i'm using 64 bit since Vista but lack of apps, either business or more commercial, drivers and other headaches drives consumers and business away from pure 64 bit environments.

XP64 for Itanium failed because the CPU itself was a failure - by the time that was realized and an X64 version for the rest of us was available, development of Longhorn Redux - Vista - was in process, so the only option was to give it away.  I actualy used that version in my first bitness crossgrades - AND my initial Bitness Wars (in this case, I was going after the "4 GB" rubric that was used against all x64 OSes - not JUST those of the Microsoft sort).  In both VM-based testing and bare-metal testing, XP64, despite its lateness, required mostly no more RAM than XP32 - in other words, so much for the rubric.  (It still had WoW64 - which came from Windows Server 2008, which provided the x64 code for Vista as well.)  Driver woes plagued Vista users on both bitnesses - amazingly, I was spared them.  The bigger adjustment for USERS was the presence of a "Program Files (x86)" folder in addition to the familiar "Program files" folder.

 

I'm not saying that the process is identical on x32 and x64 - it isn't, and that is just using Visual Studio as an IDE.  The real question that needs to be asked is exactly how MUCH difference is there - and so far, not one developer that has actually written x32 vs. x64 versions of the same application has commented on it.  That is a question that IS doubtless bugging developers looking at the decision tree - just how painful IS making the jump?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

For the vast majority of apps there's no need to have 64bit binaries, unless there's actually a need for 4GB+ of RAM or the better calling conventions, the increased memory usage can hurt via cache misses and such.

That's actually the reason Linux recently gained a new ABI for 32bit apps running in 64bit mode, so they get the benefits of a 64bit CPU without the overhead of a 64bit runtime environment.

The graphics were 128 bits or Sonic wouldn't have been able to move that fast without Blast Processing.

 

Anyway, I think it is time to get more bits. If a dinky little iPhone can have 64 of them, my big mighty PC should have 128 bits or even 256.

And what exactly do you think those "bits" are?

[taim]

With lots of focus on mobile, it's keeping ram usage even in Windows from increasing that much. If it wasn't for improving garbage collection, lower memory overhead, and system memory not increasing as fast as it use to. With Windows tablets low ram, and Windows trying to compete in Chromebooks market with low ram specs, it'll take awhile before we need 64-bit only. The top selling laptops on Amazon have 4GB of ram.

[ensiform]

(Yes) but there should still be WOW64.  And stop shipping x86 on consumer store bought machines.

[taim]

x86 computers should get decommissioned. The case, drives and any other parts can always be reused.

[123456789A]

And what exactly do you think those "bits" are?

 

They are the bits that make the computer go.

[taim]

640K is all we need.

[DConnell Member]

640K is all we need.

 

Meh. 64K was good enough for Commodore's best selling system ever, it should be good enough for anyone.*

 

 

* Looking back, I'm actually shocked at what programmers were able to accomplish in just 64K back then! (Y)

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Microsoft should simply stop providing new features for WOW.

For example,

1. New .NET features only for 64-bit

2. 64-bit only IE

3. Visual Studio compling for 64-bit only by default

4. Every new MS application 64-bit only

5. DirectX developments for 64-bit only

6. Mark 32-bit as unsecure

7. something else?

Oh and I will cry, on the inside, if W9 will still ship with support for 32-bit only hardware.

[neufuse Veteran]

no, it still needs x86 for at least a few more versions via WoW64.... BUT MS needs to completely stop selling the 100% 32-bit OS versions, and only sell 64-bit OS's, at this point, why even have a x86 version? If CPU's don't support 64bit at this point, what the point of using them