Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

[Mr. Dee]

No, it is not. Microsoft is a corporation that exists to make money. Demand is much, much, much more important than some ideological desire to push 64-bit. As long as maintaining a 32-bit version is more profitable than not doing so, they will keep doing it.

Again: Microsoft is a corporation. Their goal is to maximize profits.

Huh, yes, they are a business, but you forget about the part where its an engineering company. The company has about 40,000 engineers alone in Redmond, I am sure they look at long term goals in addition to if it will make money. But certainly, engineering probably tops the list in many of their decisions, look over the years with many past releases of Windows supporting now dead architectures such as PPC, Alpha, and most recently Itanium which the company has decided to discontinue support starting with the next release of Windows Server. Technical attributes is why Microsoft decided to focus mainly on 64 bit for Windows Server.

[Scorbing]

Here we go again... :whistle:

[hdood]

Huh, yes, they are a business, but you forget about the part where its an engineering company. The company has about 40,000 engineers alone in Redmond, I am sure they look at long term goals in addition to if it will make money.

There aren't 40,000 engineers in Redmond (and the core Windows division is smaller than people probably think), but nope. They look at what will be profitable, both short and long term.

But certainly, engineering probably tops the list in many of their decisions,

Microsoft is not motivated by engineering. If they were, all the architectural problems with Windows would have been fixed long ago, and Windows 7 would have been a very different and better OS. It isn't, because the cost of losing compatibility is too great. It is too risky to their profits.

look over the years with many past releases of Windows supporting now dead architectures such as PPC, Alpha, and most recently Itanium which the company has decided to discontinue support starting with the next release of Windows Server.

I'm not really sure what this sentence is supposed to mean. Microsoft dropped these architectures because they were no longer profitable. They supported them originally because they thought they were going to make money and because they wanted to ensure that Windows became the dominant workstation and server OS in the world, on all relevant platforms. In the earlier days it wasn't quite sure which platform would emerge as dominant (for instance, the i860 was actually supposed to be the primary Windows NT platform) so they didn't want to get left out.

Technical attributes is why Microsoft decided to focus mainly on 64 bit for Windows Server.

No, the fact that it didn't make financial sense to keep it is why.

[PGHammer]

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?

No, I didn't. I simply said that there are reasons to move even if you have *less* than 4 GB of RAM.

Despite the x64 CPU, I can't go above my current 3 GB due to a motherboard *chipset* limitation (nForce 7100/630i chipset), which I was unaware of when I bought the motherboard.

According to various and sundry punditry, I should go back to 32-bit Windows/32-bit Linux distributions.

Not only no, but *heck no*!

I refuse to give up increased stability, increased security, and increased performance - all of which I would forfeit going back to a 32-bit OS.

In fact, I have suggested that x64 merits serious consideration (given CPU and other hardware support) starting at 2 GB of RAM.

The point you made about increased RAM footprints is one that I myself made back when Windows Vista SP1 hit RTW/RTM - Gateway and Dell had started a spate of shipments of low and barely middle-end towers with sub-$1000USD (brick and mortar!) price tags, 6 GB RAM footprints, and Vista Home Premium x64. (HP has a similar tower they sell via Best Buy with 8 GB of RAM today: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+Pavilion+Elite+Desktop+/+AMD+Phenom%26%23153%3B+II+Processor+/+8GB+Memory+/+1TB+Hard+Drive/9840504.p?id=1218182298296&skuId=9840504)

Unless you are building your own hardware, you would need Windows 8 x32 why?

[ZekeComa]

If Microsoft doesn't do 64bit only, they will hurt their ownself and screw over the 64bit people. But, then again Microsoft is known for screwing their customers over.

[hdood]

If Microsoft doesn't do 64bit only, they will hurt their ownself and screw over the 64bit people. But, then again Microsoft is known for screwing their customers over.

How will Microsoft hurt themselves if they can make more money also selling a 32-bit version because there is customer demand for it?

[Electric Jolt]

Oh, and also: please drop the registry and strictly enforce APP_DATA usage. Thanks.

The registry isn't a problem. I used to be one of those people who hated the registry, but I was 12 years old at the time. I'm going to be 17 in December and I know now that the registry in some cases is a gift. If everything had it's own folder of data/information, they could get as messy as the registry is today. Plus those folders just collect more and more **** in them. The stupid iTunes folder holds the iOS IPSWs and rarely deletes them unless it knows they will never be needed. With as many iOS devices in my household synced with this computer, it could easily add up to 2GBs of IPSWs. The registry doesn't collect that much trash and it's usually always neatly organized that you can manage it.

You also have to take into consideration that more and more information these days is in the cloud. This is what they are trying to enforce on Windows Phone 7. And whenever I backup my stuff and restore on a new install, the registry isn't a problem. Sure it can be a single point of failure but in today's age, as long as everything is in the cloud or backed up elsewhere, it doesn't really matter anymore to rid of the registry.

[Lazure]

At this point, there is ZERO reasons to keep 32-bit around. None.

Keeping it around will just continue to allow those complete morons out there to install 32-bit on modern spec machines.

I say, if by 2012, 2014, whatever year windows 8 comes out, people are STILL using hardware or software that cannot be used in 64-bit... it's their fault for sticking in the mud instead of upgrading the incompatibilities when the world around them has already, in the past 2 years for the most part, advanced to the 64-bit compatible era... and they can keep using their 32-bit crap. They had 4+ years to save up and upgrade those things. Anyone who would be like that of course would be a little minority and thus not important enough to burden the future OS with support for the obsolete architecture.

Now before anyone starts screaming about the poor little netbooks on this subject: At the rate things are going, netbooks won't have a problem supporting 64-bit in 2-4 years. I doubt by the time Windows 8 is released, that netbooks will still be using the same exact atom processor, with only 1GB of RAM, and 8gb SSD drives. Alienware already released a netbook that goes way, way, way beyond being a netbook. >.>

Do remember that to support both, means Microsoft has to maintain ALL of their system libraries, applications, and tools for both. It continues to create an issue with people who are less than educated on the subject wind up installing the wrong edition or are just too afraid of 64-bit in general despite their hardware and software being up to date.

So yeah, Windows 8 should be 64-bit only. 32-bit is dead, get rid of it.

[Izlude]

I'm sure there's a LOT more 64bit users out there than what their report states (if you know what i mean, hehe yar har...) In any case, I got it because I need the extra mem. I really really need it. It's also inexpensive, only 60 dollars for 6gb 1600s (tracers ddr3) what a deal. My i7 920 was about 120. They don't sell it on newegg anymore... aw... i just noticed right now. :( seems they're all 64 bit anyway. Does Intel or AMD even make 32 bit chips anymore?

[Lazure]

64-bit was supported on CPUs back when your mobos still had AGP slots for graphics cards, DDR1 memory, and relying solely on IDE drives. The technology was there way before the OS. drivers, and software began adopting it.

It's a shame, that even today, some idiots still look at 64-bit as some unsupported or unneeded architecture despite the fact it alone allows full use of the RAM capacities commonly found today, among other major advantages.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Let's assume that Windows 8 ships in late 2011/early 2012. Microsoft always supports the current version of Windows (which will be Windows 8 for the purposes of this discussion) and one version backwards (which would then be Windows 7).

Now let's take a step back and look at the current situation. OEMs will still be able to sell Windows Vista (the version prior to Windows 7) until October of 2011 (more than two years after the release of its replacement).

Windows 9 (Nine) probably won't be ready until 2014 or so which would mean that Windows 7 (including the 32bit version) will probably be sold until 2014.

The question then is: "Will we still need to be able to purchase supported 32-bit operating systems after 2014 or will everyone have had enough time to migrate to a 64bit OS by then?"

From a technical perspective, Windows 8 could be 64bit only. From a sales perspective, it would probably be safer to release it in both 32bit and 64bit offerings to make it easier for existing users to upgrade.

[Crazysah]

So what your saying is that Windows 8 should be 32 and 64-bit and Windows 9 should only be 64-bit?

[Ci7]

Let's assume that Windows 8 ships in late 2011/early 2012. Microsoft always supports the current version of Windows (which will be Windows 8 for the purposes of this discussion) and one version backwards (which would then be Windows 7).

Now let's take a step back and look at the current situation. OEMs will still be able to sell Windows Vista (the version prior to Windows 7) until October of 2011 (more than two years after the release of its replacement).

Windows 9 (Nine) probably won't be ready until 2014 or so which would mean that Windows 7 (including the 32bit version) will probably be sold until 2014.

The question then is: "Will we still need to be able to purchase supported 32-bit operating systems after 2014 or will everyone have had enough time to migrate to a 64bit OS by then?"

From a technical perspective, Windows 8 could be 64bit only. From a sales perspective, it would probably be safer to release it in both 32bit and 64bit offerings to make it easier for existing users to upgrade.

by 2014

i bet smallest single ram you would find would be 4GB (go figure , quad channel system ~16GB ram systems)

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/memory/2010/08/26/ddr4-what-we-can-expect/2

i dont think you can find memory smaller then 1GB anyway now.

both vista and 7 would be in extended support (barely supported)

and windows xp buried in the core of the earth!

[Darrian]

Bold move? Please. We were told that Windows 7 was going to be 64-bit only and then they pussied out. Get on with it already, Microsoft. Then we can stop seeing threads asking which architecture is better even though the choice is clearly obvious.

[M_Lyons10]

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

Yeah, and unless Microsoft has a different OS for netbooks, wouldn't they need a 32 bit version for them? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but putting a 64 bit OS on a netbook seems to not make much sense to me...

[omganinja]

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

And 100% of those people who use 32bit don't know or want to know, the difference between 32bit and 64bit. 64 bit only is the way to go. Who would want 32bit over 64bit (excluding people with legacy hardware, who really should be forced to upgrade anyway)?

[Darrian]

As much as I'd like to see 64-bit only, what about the ****loads of netbooks around.

Does MS just forget about them?

The 1st wave of netbooks were only x86-compatible but most Atom CPUs are 64-bit now.

[LiquidSolstice]

My desktop only has 2GB of RAM and it runs perfectly fine for what I want it to do. Why should I have to deal with 64bit OSes when the 32-bit versions work fine? Same with my netbook. Granted, my tablet has 3 gigs of RAM, but I still run 32bit on it because I see no real benefit to be gained from the extra hard drive spaced used and the WOW emulation for my non-64-bit native apps.

[Ci7]

My desktop only has 2GB of RAM and it runs perfectly fine for what I want it to do. Why should I have to deal with 64bit OSes when the 32-bit versions work fine? Same with my netbook. Granted, my tablet has 3 gigs of RAM, but I still run 32bit on it because I see no real benefit to be gained from the extra hard drive spaced used and the WOW emulation for my non-64-bit native apps.

for the millionth time there are no emulation for x86-64 arch

it run natively.

get over it!

just don't cry a river when the stop making 32bit software.

OS arch fragmentation only serve to slowdown computer advancement

[Carbon Fiber]

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.

CORRECT

[Lazure]

CORRECT

No, not correct.

Windows 8 needs to drop 32-bit installations, period. I really hope it does. People who are too retarded to use 64-bit here in 2010, let alone 2012~2014 or whenever windows 8 comes out, deserve to not be able to upgrade their OS. You would support 32-bit still holding things back this far out? I'm so sick of seeing people waste their 4GB+ RAM systems because they were MORONS and installed 32-bit on it instead of 64-bit. Without 32-bit, NO ONE would be doing something this stupid anymore!

Do people still honestly believe that 64-bit slows down 32-bit programs or something? Are they that stupid? OMG. 32-bit apps are not EMULATED in 64-bit environment, you wouldn't even notice that syswow64 was even being used, PERIOD. Everything runs perfectly fine, except for the oddball horribly programmed or old-fashioned program that uses strange coding methods that are unusually incompatible with Windows 7 in GENERAL... and way outdated hardware -- both of which people should stop using if they want to use the next generation OS!

Down with 32-bit! It's overwith. Let us embrace fully the 64-bit architecture and leave the 32-bit crutches behind.

[hdood]

No, not correct.

Windows 8 needs to drop 32-bit support, period. I really hope it does. People who are too retarded to use 64-bit here in 2010, let alone 2012~2014 or whenever windows 8 comes out, deserve to not be able to upgrade their OS. You would support 32-bit still holding things back this far out?

It has zero to do with being retarded or what you "feel" is the best choice. Microsoft is a corporation that answers to its shareholders. It exists solely to make money. That is Microsoft's only reason for existing. This means that their decision must be based on what strategy is most profitable. If that strategy involves a 32-bit version of Windows, then it would be grossly irresponsible to get rid of it. Irresponsible to the point where whoever made the decision should be fired. It's obvious that OEMs are not going to be shipping 32-bit Windows, which means it would be just for those who really wanted it. I really don't know why you care so much. How does it affect you?

[threetonesun]

My guess is when 8 comes out, it will be 64-bit only. No companies that sell PCs have 32-bit hardware around still, so they'll have no need for a 32-bit OS. For those who want to upgrade, and have 32 bit machines, they'll be pushed to buy new ones. Remember, Microsoft makes money selling upgrades and new PCs, and I don't think they would hurt anyone's opinion of them if they told them their 5 or 6 year old PC was outdated.

[Mr. Dee]

Bold move? Please. We were told that Windows 7 was going to be 64-bit only and then they pussied out. Get on with it already, Microsoft. Then we can stop seeing threads asking which architecture is better even though the choice is clearly obvious.

Microsoft never ever said such a thing. Rumors were going around websites in the fall of 2008 that Microsoft might make Windows 7 a 64 bit release only (speculation). Microsoft then announced on their Windows Team Blog that this was not true and that Windows Server 2008 R2 would be the only one going 64 bit only.

Anyway, this 32 vs 64 bit debate is becoming childish. Work with whatever does the job.

[techguy77]

Since most people run OEM computers, OEM will eventually push 64bit only. Most people don't even know what they are buying. People who run custom built computers already run 64bit Windows.