Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

[Ci7]

The installed base of 64-bit (x64) Windows 7 has reached 46% in June 2010, vs. 54% for 32-bit (x86) Windows 7, according to statistics released by Microsoft. It is clear from the data shared by the Redmond company that end users are starting to choose x64 systems and equivalent Windows 7 editions over older x86 architectures. The software giant underlines that this is an increasing trend, and that it expects 64-bit Windows 7 to become the norm, and 32-bit Windows 7 the exception. Of course, the question now is, what will the future hold for Windows 8?

Microsoft does have a few options. It could of course continue to serve both 32-bit and 64-bit editions ofWindows 8, just as it did with Windows 7 and Windows Vista. Or it could drop the x86 flavors of Windows 8 altogether, and produce only x64 Windows 8 SKUs. This would certainly be a bold move for the software giant, but Microsoft is sure not to come to a conclusion in this regard without carefully considering the overall impact.

In June 2010, just 1% of all Windows XP machines were running a 64-bit copy of the OS, and just 11% of Vista computers had the x64 version installed. The vast majority of XP users, 99% are still running 32-bit systems, and the same is valid for 89% of Vista customers.

Only now, a little over eight months since the advent of Window 7, does 64-bit computing appear to be on the brink of becoming ubiquitous, and making 32-bit architectures a thing of the past. x64 processors have been available for a while now, but only 64-bit Windows 7 seems to have gained sufficient traction, in concert with new OEM computers shipped worldwide, to push x86 processors onto their shelve in history.

There already is a precedent. In 2009, Microsoft offered the first x64-only Windows operating system. With the introduction of Windows Server 2008 R2 (Windows 7 Server), the software giant dumped support for x86 processors completely. Could a similar move be considered for Windows 8?

End users are certainly behind the x64 adoption wave. 64-bit platforms and modern CPUs pave the way for parallel processing, mean more RAM (up to 192 GB for Windows 7), better security etc. But it seems that the entire world is slowly arriving to a consensus, as far as 64-bit is concerned.

There are factors outside of Redmond to take into consideration

?OEMs today have fully embraced 64-bit. We have seen many OEMs convert entire consumer lines of PCs to 64-bit only ? which can be seen quite a bit today in North America. According to Stephen Baker at NPD, 77% of PCs sold at retail in April 2010 in the U.S. had a 64-bit edition of Windows 7 pre-installed. And businesses are adopting Windows 7 64-bit as well. According to Gartner, by 2014 75% of all business PCs will be running a 64-bit edition of Windows. Intel recently migrated to 64-bit Windows 7,? revealed Brandon LeBlanc, Windows Communications Manager on the Windows Client Communications Team.

?As I mentioned previously, there are more compatible hardware and software for PCs today thanks to the amazing work from our partners (ISVs and IHVs) making their products compatible with 64-bit. Through the Windows Logo Program (the ?Compatible with Windows 7? logo today), hardware partners are required to develop 64-bit drivers for their devices and software partners are required to have their applications compatible with 64-bit Windows 7. This groundwork was laid with the Windows Logo Program for Windows Vista and carries through to today with Windows 7,? revealed Brandon LeBlanc, Windows Communications Manager on the Windows Client Communications Team,? LeBlanc added.

Of course it is still too early to ask Microsoft in which direction it will go with Windows 8. And too early for the company to start sharing its plans with the public. The unconfirmed schedule for the delivery of Windows 8 indicates that Windows 7?s successor will be offered in mid-2012. In this context, by the summer of 2011, when the first Beta of Windows 8 should drop, we can also expect the company to reveal whether its next Windows client will be x64-only or not.

There are aspects independent from Microsoft that will undoubtedly influence this decision. If the adoption of x64 PCs and Windows 7 continues at the same rate, then a x86 flavor of Windows 8 will be less likely. But if a high uptake rate works in concert with original equipment manufacturers also dumping 32-bit, and with the ecosystem of hardware and software solutions around Windows shifting the focus to 64-bit entirely, then a 32-bit Windows 8 would simply no longer make sense. It?s worth noting although that just 2 years ahead of the reported delivery date for Windows 8, Adobe still has to produce a 64-bit version of Flash, although the plug-in is ubiquitous, and x64 Internet Explorer has been available for quite some time. And Adobe are by no means not alone.

What do you think? Should Microsoft make Windows 8 exclusively 64-bit, and continue selling 32-bit Windows 7? Or should the company deliver both x86 and x64 flavors of Windows 8, per the Windows 7 and Windows Vista model?

source

[hdood]

They should do whatever makes the most money.

[Mazhar]

If more than 50% use 32-bit, there is no point of releasing only 64-bit versions of Windows 8. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions should be released.

[Darth Laidher]

The installed base of 64-bit (x64) Windows 7 has reached 46% in June 2010, vs. 54% for 32-bit (x86) Windows 7, according to statistics released by Microsoft. It is clear from the data shared by the Redmond company that end users are starting to choose x64 systems and equivalent Windows 7 editions over older x86 architectures. The software giant underlines that this is an increasing trend, and that it expects 64-bit Windows 7 to become the norm, and 32-bit Windows 7 the exception. Of course, the question now is, what will the future hold for Windows 8?

Microsoft does have a few options. It could of course continue to serve both 32-bit and 64-bit editions ofWindows 8, just as it did with Windows 7 and Windows Vista. Or it could drop the x86 flavors of Windows 8 altogether, and produce only x64 Windows 8 SKUs. This would certainly be a bold move for the software giant, but Microsoft is sure not to come to a conclusion in this regard without carefully considering the overall impact.

In June 2010, just 1% of all Windows XP machines were running a 64-bit copy of the OS, and just 11% of Vista computers had the x64 version installed. The vast majority of XP users, 99% are still running 32-bit systems, and the same is valid for 89% of Vista customers.

Only now, a little over eight months since the advent of Window 7, does 64-bit computing appear to be on the brink of becoming ubiquitous, and making 32-bit architectures a thing of the past. x64 processors have been available for a while now, but only 64-bit Windows 7 seems to have gained sufficient traction, in concert with new OEM computers shipped worldwide, to push x86 processors onto their shelve in history.

There already is a precedent. In 2009, Microsoft offered the first x64-only Windows operating system. With the introduction of Windows Server 2008 R2 (Windows 7 Server), the software giant dumped support for x86 processors completely. Could a similar move be considered for Windows 8?

End users are certainly behind the x64 adoption wave. 64-bit platforms and modern CPUs pave the way for parallel processing, mean more RAM (up to 192 GB for Windows 7), better security etc. But it seems that the entire world is slowly arriving to a consensus, as far as 64-bit is concerned.

There are factors outside of Redmond to take into consideration

?OEMs today have fully embraced 64-bit. We have seen many OEMs convert entire consumer lines of PCs to 64-bit only ? which can be seen quite a bit today in North America. According to Stephen Baker at NPD, 77% of PCs sold at retail in April 2010 in the U.S. had a 64-bit edition of Windows 7 pre-installed. And businesses are adopting Windows 7 64-bit as well. According to Gartner, by 2014 75% of all business PCs will be running a 64-bit edition of Windows. Intel recently migrated to 64-bit Windows 7,? revealed Brandon LeBlanc, Windows Communications Manager on the Windows Client Communications Team.

?As I mentioned previously, there are more compatible hardware and software for PCs today thanks to the amazing work from our partners (ISVs and IHVs) making their products compatible with 64-bit. Through the Windows Logo Program (the ?Compatible with Windows 7? logo today), hardware partners are required to develop 64-bit drivers for their devices and software partners are required to have their applications compatible with 64-bit Windows 7. This groundwork was laid with the Windows Logo Program for Windows Vista and carries through to today with Windows 7,? revealed Brandon LeBlanc, Windows Communications Manager on the Windows Client Communications Team,? LeBlanc added.

Of course it is still too early to ask Microsoft in which direction it will go with Windows 8. And too early for the company to start sharing its plans with the public. The unconfirmed schedule for the delivery of Windows 8 indicates that Windows 7?s successor will be offered in mid-2012. In this context, by the summer of 2011, when the first Beta of Windows 8 should drop, we can also expect the company to reveal whether its next Windows client will be x64-only or not.

There are aspects independent from Microsoft that will undoubtedly influence this decision. If the adoption of x64 PCs and Windows 7 continues at the same rate, then a x86 flavor of Windows 8 will be less likely. But if a high uptake rate works in concert with original equipment manufacturers also dumping 32-bit, and with the ecosystem of hardware and software solutions around Windows shifting the focus to 64-bit entirely, then a 32-bit Windows 8 would simply no longer make sense. It?s worth noting although that just 2 years ahead of the reported delivery date for Windows 8, Adobe still has to produce a 64-bit version of Flash, although the plug-in is ubiquitous, and x64 Internet Explorer has been available for quite some time. And Adobe are by no means not alone.

What do you think? Should Microsoft make Windows 8 exclusively 64-bit, and continue selling 32-bit Windows 7? Or should the company deliver both x86 and x64 flavors of Windows 8, per the Windows 7 and Windows Vista model?

source

If they upgrade.I wouldn't doubt that some business's will still be running XP by 2014.

[Sadelwo]

A large prtion of PC's sold today come with 4GB of RAM or more (discounting netbooks) and any system with an AMD Athlon or Pentium Daul Core (circa 2006) can run 64 bit Windows. Drivers have rapidly matured to become a non issue on current and new hardware. Two years? I say full 64 bit. If you're on a system lower than a Pentium D or Athlon 64 in 2012, don't take this as being arrogant, its high time to upgrade and reap the benefits of both new hardware and OS. Its a solution one won't regret :cool:

[Growled Member]

If more than 50% use 32-bit, there is no point of releasing only 64-bit versions of Windows 8. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions should be released.

I'm torn on it. Clearly 64-bit is the future. However, half the people out there still use 32-bit.

[Osiris]

I hope Win8 heralds the end of 32bit. Its already gone on the server side, 08R2 and WHS Vail are 64bit only

[primexx]

I really support the trend to 64-bit computing but I haven't actually switched over myself yet for the simple reason that I have no need to. None of my computers has more than 3 gigs of RAM and putting 64-bit Win7 on would only really waste resources. As much as I'd like to, I doubt I can afford to replace all my computers by the time Win8 is released to actually take advantage of 64-bits, so I will probably continue to use the 32-bit version if they offer it. I also doubt businesses really have much need to go all out with 64-bit so it's probably still worth while putting out a 32-bit version for Win8. Hopefully adoption of 64-bit would be high enough that they can offer only one version for Win9.

[jakem1]

To be honest I don't think it really matters. It's not like the industry is being held back by 32-bit versions of the OS and most OEMs are shipping 64-bit anyway. I suspect that Microsoft will release a 32-bit version for those people who need it but I would expect Windows 8 will be the last.

[techguy77]

Half of people who are using 32bit wouldn't even know if somebody updated to 64bit. There is no need for 32bit edition anymore. Microsoft should keep it simple this time and it will cut a cost and time. And if a few people out there needs 32bit they don't need more then Windows 7 anyway. Thing is by the time Windows 8 is released, 32bit is going to be a history.

I really support the trend to 64-bit computing but I haven't actually switched over myself yet for the simple reason that I have no need to. None of my computers has more than 3 gigs of RAM and putting 64-bit Win7 on would only really waste resources. As much as I'd like to, I doubt I can afford to replace all my computers by the time Win8 is released to actually take advantage of 64-bits, so I will probably continue to use the 32-bit version if they offer it. I also doubt businesses really have much need to go all out with 64-bit so it's probably still worth while putting out a 32-bit version for Win8. Hopefully adoption of 64-bit would be high enough that they can offer only one version for Win9.

Looks like you don't use your computer really that much, otherwise you would need more then 3gb of RAM which is ok.

If they upgrade.I wouldn't doubt that some business's will still be running XP by 2014.

Did you know that UPS is still on Windows 2000 Professional? It means nothing.

[dknm]

It would help a great deal to leave 32/64 bit on the backburner and address ditching bios for efi :< . Talk about legacy ...

It's been stated that it would be the last OS to support 32 bit . Definitely 8 will support it . The decision to cut legacy off must come at the right time ; you won't see large business' rushing to buy new hardware or os's unless it is translates in higher income ( enough to cover the investment for a first) .?

[Skulltrail]

Windows 7 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I think we should wait and see what happens statistically. I'm sure the number of 64-bit users will increase notably throughout the next few years, which is enough to time to determine and decide on 64-bit exclusivity.

Afterall, there are still a large number of users still using Windows XP; a discontinued OS by Microsoft.

[Ironman273]

I'm torn on it. Clearly 64-bit is the future. However, half the people out there still use 32-bit.

The issue is to ask why these people are running 32 bit. Did they choose it or did it just come preinstalled? If they bought their next computer and it came with a 64 bit OS that works every bit as good (if not better) than the 32 bit counterpart would they care (or notice)?

[Ci7]

look like by that time 4-8GB ram would be common

which mean ====> x64

since MS code for like 3 years forward and 5 years back(2008-2015)

[PGHammer]

I really support the trend to 64-bit computing but I haven't actually switched over myself yet for the simple reason that I have no need to. None of my computers has more than 3 gigs of RAM and putting 64-bit Win7 on would only really waste resources. As much as I'd like to, I doubt I can afford to replace all my computers by the time Win8 is released to actually take advantage of 64-bits, so I will probably continue to use the 32-bit version if they offer it. I also doubt businesses really have much need to go all out with 64-bit so it's probably still worth while putting out a 32-bit version for Win8. Hopefully adoption of 64-bit would be high enough that they can offer only one version for Win9.

x64 is not and has not been entirely about large amounts of memory (unlesss you are talking about servers).

Here are my three driving forces for my own crossgrade (and recommendation) to x64:

1. Stability (both application and operating system). Thanks to features such as NX (all x64 CPUs support it), WOW64 thunking (all x64 versions of Windows), and IA32 libraries (all x64 Linux distributions), you lose few to none of your 32-bit applicaitons when running an x64 operating system; also, the applications themselves are safer, because a misbehaving app won't take down the whole OS when it falls down.

2. Increased security. Those same features also act as additional armor for your applications, protecting it from rogue outside-the-box threats.

3. Increased performance. This one actually surprised me; even in cases where a native x64 version of an application doesn't exist (which is true of most applications), merely moving to an x64 OS results in increased performance (as in reduced running time to accomplish tasks) even with no other changes.

Notice that RAM is nowhere on that list.

[Lazure]

x64 is not and has not been entirely about large amounts of memory (unlesss you are talking about servers).

Here are my three driving forces for my own crossgrade (and recommendation) to x64:

1. Stability (both application and operating system). Thanks to features such as NX (all x64 CPUs support it), WOW64 thunking (all x64 versions of Windows), and IA32 libraries (all x64 Linux distributions), you lose few to none of your 32-bit applicaitons when running an x64 operating system; also, the applications themselves are safer, because a misbehaving app won't take down the whole OS when it falls down.

2. Increased security. Those same features also act as additional armor for your applications, protecting it from rogue outside-the-box threats.

3. Increased performance. This one actually surprised me; even in cases where a native x64 version of an application doesn't exist (which is true of most applications), merely moving to an x64 OS results in increased performance (as in reduced running time to accomplish tasks) even with no other changes.

Notice that RAM is nowhere on that list.

So you completely ignore the importance of being able to use more than 3GB of RAM as a strong point in x64 OS over x86, when plenty of computers (even those cheapo eMachines) have 4~6GB of RAM now?

[Mr. Dee]

I was listening the radio this morning, and a guy was talking about a generic laptop he bought in China, with 8 GBs of RAM, 500 GB hard disk for US $500, unbelievable.

Anyway, 32 or 64 bit for Windows vNext? Honestly, I think they should keep both, because the statistics are out there why they should keep compiling both a 32 and 64 bit kernel. First of all, I have a Dell Dimension 8300 I bought in March 2004, came with XP Home, upgraded it to XP Professional. Tested Vista on it during the beta, upgraded near beta 2 to 2.6 GBs of RAM from the factory installed 512 for added performance. I haven't done anything to it since, upgraded it to Vista Business, and now I am running Windows 7 Professional on it. Performance is great, watching videos, even Media Center works great on it, but I have since customized the install to just have the essentials.

Now, this system is using a Pentium 4 Northwood, which 32 bit only. Although this system will continue to run Windows 7 Professional just fine until 2020, if its even alive then, I don't have a problem, if the next release is 64 bit only, I have two other systems that are 64 bit capable. This system has served me well. But, users need to wonder, with 85% of businesses still running Windows XP, you have to wonder, even if these systems are 64 bit capable, does it really mean, they are capable of running a 64 bit OS. Even if they can upgrade to 64 bit Windows by 2015, it does not solve problems of compatibility with custom apps, MED-V and XP Mode can't resolve it all. I built a Sempron in 2006 with 512 MBs of RAM, which ran 64 bit horribly, but it surprisingly runs 32 bit Windows 7 well, can surf the web, office productivity, check email.

Its quite obvious that the processors in most systems sold within the last 3 years are 64 bit capable, but, it doesn't meet the detailed requirements such as RAM and drivers in some cases. Also, you might have a 64 bit capable system, but it comes with a 32 bit OS, not a lot of persons are interested in formatting that just to install a 64 bit OS, even Microsoft recommends, if you have a 32 bit Windows OS installed, just do an upgrade to Windows 7 32 bit.

Netbooks - the majority of Netbooks come with 1 to 2 GBs of RAM and an ATOM processor, this is just not a 64 bit capable spec. Most of the memory modules in these systems are soldered on making them not upgradable. Netbooks are a hot class of hardware these days, it has even added to Intels bottom line. Most of them are running Windows XP or Windows 7 Starter which is 32 bit only.

Now, is Microsoft is gonna isolate 85 percent of businesses who are stubborn with their upgrade strategy, millions of Netbooks that can run a 32 bit OS better than a 64 bit one? I honestly don't think so, in fact it would be a risk and probably open up an opportunity for Ubuntu Linux.

What I suspect Microsoft might do is, restrict OEMs to shipping Windows vNext systems with a 64 bit version of Windows only with exception to Netbooks. So desktops and laptops will only carry Windows vNext Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate 64 bit. Retail boxed packages will be available with both 32 and 64 bit upgrades, simply because of the obvious, you just don't know what every computer out there is running 64 bit or 32 bit.

It doesn't cost Microsoft anything to compile 32 and 64 bit Windows, both are done in tandem. But I am sure it will be a burden similar to maintaining Windows 9x and NT back in the past. I just don't believe its the right time now or 3 years from now.

[Motoko.]

I don't understand why Microsoft can't make a hybrid disc containing 32 and 64 bit versions.

[Ci7]

I was listening the radio this morning, and a guy was talking about a generic laptop he bought in China, with 8 GBs of RAM, 500 GB hard disk for US $500, unbelievable.

Anyway, 32 or 64 bit for Windows vNext? Honestly, I think they should keep both, because the statistics are out there why they should keep compiling both a 32 and 64 bit kernel. First of all, I have a Dell Dimension 8300 I bought in March 2004, came with XP Home, upgraded it to XP Professional. Tested Vista on it during the beta, upgraded near beta 2 to 2.6 GBs of RAM from the factory installed 512 for added performance. I haven't done anything to it since, upgraded it to Vista Business, and now I am running Windows 7 Professional on it. Performance is great, watching videos, even Media Center works great on it, but I have since customized the install to just have the essentials.

Now, this system is using a Pentium 4 Northwood, which 32 bit only. Although this system will continue to run Windows 7 Professional just fine until 2020, if its even alive then, I don't have a problem, if the next release is 64 bit only, I have two other systems that are 64 bit capable. This system has served me well. But, users need to wonder, with 85% of businesses still running Windows XP, you have to wonder, even if these systems are 64 bit capable, does it really mean, they are capable of running a 64 bit OS. Even if they can upgrade to 64 bit Windows by 2015, it does not solve problems of compatibility with custom apps, MED-V and XP Mode can't resolve it all. I built a Sempron in 2006 with 512 MBs of RAM, which ran 64 bit horribly, but it surprisingly runs 32 bit Windows 7 well, can surf the web, office productivity, check email.

Its quite obvious that the processors in most systems sold within the last 3 years are 64 bit capable, but, it doesn't meet the detailed requirements such as RAM and drivers in some cases. Also, you might have a 64 bit capable system, but it comes with a 32 bit OS, not a lot of persons are interested in formatting that just to install a 64 bit OS, even Microsoft recommends, if you have a 32 bit Windows OS installed, just do an upgrade to Windows 7 32 bit.

Netbooks - the majority of Netbooks come with 1 to 2 GBs of RAM and an ATOM processor, this is just not a 64 bit capable spec. Most of the memory modules in these systems are soldered on making them not upgradable. Netbooks are a hot class of hardware these days, it has even added to Intels bottom line. Most of them are running Windows XP or Windows 7 Starter which is 32 bit only.

Now, is Microsoft is gonna isolate 85 percent of businesses who are stubborn with their upgrade strategy, millions of Netbooks that can run a 32 bit OS better than a 64 bit one? I honestly don't think so, in fact it would be a risk and probably open up an opportunity for Ubuntu Linux.

What I suspect Microsoft might do is, restrict OEMs to shipping Windows vNext systems with a 64 bit version of Windows only with exception to Netbooks. So desktops and laptops will only carry Windows vNext Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate 64 bit. Retail boxed packages will be available with both 32 and 64 bit upgrades, simply because of the obvious, you just don't know what every computer out there is running 64 bit or 32 bit.

It doesn't cost Microsoft anything to compile 32 and 64 bit Windows, both are done in tandem. But I am sure it will be a burden similar to maintaining Windows 9x and NT back in the past. I just don't believe its the right time now or 3 years from now.

well they can ship starter edition for old machines/netbooks

and who to say netbooks won't ship with 4GB+ by the time windows 8 is out ??? and remember there are 64bit atoms chips

[Mr. Dee]

Yes, Netbooks will ship with 4 GBs of RAM in the next 3 years, but what about existing Netbooks that are sold now and those already in use from previous years? There are at least 45 million sold this year alone. Should Microsoft forget those?

Why should older machines running Windows 7 Ultimate, Home Premium and Professional 32 bit be downgraded to a future release of Windows Starter? Doesn't make sense.

I don't understand why Microsoft can't make a hybrid disc containing 32 and 64 bit versions.

Binaries are too large to hold on one DVD disk. They would have to ship on Dual Layer disk which are too expensive. This is not a problem anyway, since you have choose one any way. Just open the box, look at the disk and choose the architecture you believe is most suitable for you.

Even OS X is 32 or 64 bit.

[Southern Patriot]

I don't understand why Microsoft can't make a hybrid disc containing 32 and 64 bit versions.

Binaries are too large to hold on one DVD disk. They would have to ship on Dual Layer disk which are too expensive. This is not a problem anyway, since you have choose one any way. Just open the box, look at the disk and choose the architecture you believe is most suitable for you.

Wrong. I've seen third party hybrid discs of Vista and 7 made that have both on a single layer disc. And even if it did require a dual layer disc, it doesn't cost them much (if anything) more to produce them. Most movies that you buy (even bargin bin movies) are on dual layer discs. You seem to be thinking of the price difference between a single and a dual layer DVD-R disc. And it would be fairly simple for Microsoft to have the installer check which type of hardware it was being installed on and use the correct version.

[Evolution]

I see no reason to sell a 32-bit variant for Windows 8, all it's going to do is require additional support and coding. The people who want a 32-bit variant probably haven't upgraded since XP.

[KamiQuazi]

Microsoft should dump x86 architecture and go main stream x64. By now the people with the older (non-64-bit chips) computer shouldn't be able to run Windows 8.

[Southern Patriot]

Microsoft should dump x86 architecture and go main stream x64. By now the people with the older (non-64-bit chips) computer shouldn't be able to run Windows 8.

As some people continually have to point out (and other people like you continually ignore), there are STILL machines being sold that are 32-bit. Mainly netbooks, but I've seen a few low end desktops and laptops in stores recently that were as well.

[KamiQuazi]

As some people continually have to point out (and other people like you continually ignore), there are STILL machines being sold that are 32-bit. Mainly netbooks, but I've seen a few low end desktops and laptops in stores recently that were as well.

It needs to be abandoned, if they never abandoned 16-bit do you think the majority of people would have moved on to 32-bit? People who purchase those machines should stay with Windows 7 or Vista. Plain and simple. Why does everything need to ran so long before being abandoned? I didn't ignore what was said above I stated my opinion and you disagreed with it.