Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

[Lazure]

Yeah, who is intentionally going to get 32-bit for any valid reason?

- The people who go and buy a computer from Best Buy or Wal-Mart ain't going to know what 32-bit or 64-bit means, and systems are already pretty much unanimously selling systems running 64-bit ANYWAYS.

- People who custom build their own computer, and obviously know what they're doing, are going to be installing 64-bit. They ain't going to be custom building a computer using parts from 8 years ago, and likely will be putting at least 4GB of RAM in their system anyways!

- If a business' software does not work in 64-bit, the business likely doesn't even intend to use Windows 7 at all, let alone Windows 8; and thus they are sticking with XP. I'm sure that once they intend on ever upgrading, they will have that program recompiled to work in 64-bit in the modern versions of windows. This, of course, meaning they will also be 64-bit ready when the time comes.

- By the time Windows 8 comes out, all netbooks will likely handle 64-bit perfectly fine. The specs are already slowly creeping up and up on those little guys.

The only people who NEED 32-bit today:

- The people who are still using dirt old hardware, or dirt-old peripherals. Machines that are best suited to still be running XP. Putting Windows 8 on them would present more problems than just the fact it's 64-bit; so these people don't matter. If they ever want Windows 8, they'll just want to save up for a new PC or upgrade their peripherals. Not worth releasing 32-bit Windows 8 just for these people.

- The people still running 16-bit software. How many people actually still run a program written in windows 3.1 or DOS in a modern version of Windows anyways? This stuff belongs in a virtual machine or even DosBOX now. Not worth releasing a 32-bit edition of Windows for a niche crowd that already has this solution to use for this stuff.

- The people who install 32-bit on a modern spec machine, despite it having 4GB+ of RAM and multicore processors, simply don't know what they're doing and/or are uninformed that 64-bit runs just fine. Their ignorance should not be what causes Windows 8 to be released in 32-bit, either, as their worries are unfounded and therefore do not reflect reality. Their only concerns should be the two points I made just above this one, and there's a solution to those things!

[Fred Derf Veteran]

...

The only people who NEED 32-bit today:

- The people who are still using dirt old hardware, or dirt-old peripherals. Machines that are best suited to still be running XP. Putting Windows 8 on them would present more problems than just the fact it's 64-bit; so these people don't matter. If they ever want Windows 8, they'll just want to save up for a new PC or upgrade their peripherals. Not worth releasing 32-bit Windows 8 just for these people.

- The people still running 16-bit software. How many people actually still run a program written in windows 3.1 or DOS in a modern version of Windows anyways? This stuff belongs in a virtual machine or even DosBOX now. Not worth releasing a 32-bit edition of Windows for a niche crowd that already has this solution to use for this stuff.

- The people who install 32-bit on a modern spec machine, despite it having 4GB+ of RAM and multicore processors, simply don't know what they're doing and/or are uninformed that 64-bit runs just fine. Their ignorance should not be what causes Windows 8 to be released in 32-bit, either, as their worries are unfounded and therefore do not reflect reality. Their only concerns should be the two points I made just above this one, and there's a solution to those things!

I think the most valid/common reason (for somebody running Windows 7 32bit today) is that they have an existing 32bit XP system that runs fairly well with the applications that they need but they want to upgrade to a newer version of Windows. Not everyone is comfortable with a reformat. Not everyone re-images their computer every few months.

I will say, that the 4GB limit will be a really big roadblock by the time 2014 comes around and most of those 32-bit XP/Vista (or XP/Vista upgraded to Windows 7) systems will be rather long in the tooth by then.

For proponents of Windows 8 being 64bit, time is one their side. The longer Microsoft waits to make a decision about it, the less of a need there will be for a 32bit version.

[Lazure]

I think the most valid/common reason (for somebody running Windows 7 32bit today) is that they have an existing 32bit XP system that runs fairly well with the applications that they need but they want to upgrade to a newer version of Windows. Not everyone is comfortable with a reformat. Not everyone re-images their computer every few months.

I will say, that the 4GB limit will be a really big roadblock by the time 2014 comes around and most of those 32-bit XP/Vista (or XP/Vista upgraded to Windows 7) systems will be rather long in the tooth by then.

For proponents of Windows 8 being 64bit, time is one their side. The longer Microsoft waits to make a decision about it, the less of a need there will be for a 32bit version.

They can't upgrade from XP to 7 without a reformat anyways.

[LiquidSolstice]

Yeah, who is intentionally going to get 32-bit for any valid reason?

- The people who go and buy a computer from Best Buy or Wal-Mart ain't going to know what 32-bit or 64-bit means, and systems are already pretty much unanimously selling systems running 64-bit ANYWAYS.

- People who custom build their own computer, and obviously know what they're doing, are going to be installing 64-bit. They ain't going to be custom building a computer using parts from 8 years ago, and likely will be putting at least 4GB of RAM in their system anyways!

- If a business' software does not work in 64-bit, the business likely doesn't even intend to use Windows 7 at all, let alone Windows 8; and thus they are sticking with XP. I'm sure that once they intend on ever upgrading, they will have that program recompiled to work in 64-bit in the modern versions of windows. This, of course, meaning they will also be 64-bit ready when the time comes.

- By the time Windows 8 comes out, all netbooks will likely handle 64-bit perfectly fine. The specs are already slowly creeping up and up on those little guys.

The only people who NEED 32-bit today:

- The people who are still using dirt old hardware, or dirt-old peripherals. Machines that are best suited to still be running XP. Putting Windows 8 on them would present more problems than just the fact it's 64-bit; so these people don't matter. If they ever want Windows 8, they'll just want to save up for a new PC or upgrade their peripherals. Not worth releasing 32-bit Windows 8 just for these people.

- The people still running 16-bit software. How many people actually still run a program written in windows 3.1 or DOS in a modern version of Windows anyways? This stuff belongs in a virtual machine or even DosBOX now. Not worth releasing a 32-bit edition of Windows for a niche crowd that already has this solution to use for this stuff.

- The people who install 32-bit on a modern spec machine, despite it having 4GB+ of RAM and multicore processors, simply don't know what they're doing and/or are uninformed that 64-bit runs just fine. Their ignorance should not be what causes Windows 8 to be released in 32-bit, either, as their worries are unfounded and therefore do not reflect reality. Their only concerns should be the two points I made just above this one, and there's a solution to those things!

You know, your computing elitism and condescending remarks are really starting to tick me off. I've seen you, countless times, in threads pertaining to customization where all you do is hassle people about their choices and make binary judgment calls about them (For example, The Awesome Window Manager thread), calling them old fashioned, calling them change-a-phobes, and honestly, it'd be nice if you toned it down a little bit.

My netbook has two gigs of RAM. It needs a 32-bit OS. It's not the latest and greatest, but it runs Windows 7 with Aero just fine, and gets close to 10 and a half hours of battery life (with wifi on). Do you mean to tell me that that machine is best suited for XP? That I shouldn't be running 7 soley because it's a 32-bit version?

My desktop has only two gigs of RAM, and it runs?just fine for what I need from a computer. Why would I want to bother with 64-bit drivers for my hardware, risk having software that may or may not work, and just make it more of a pain to manage my installation process? Do you mean to tell me that I should change what's currently working just fine, for the sole reason of it not being the "absolute best of the best"?

My laptop has 3 gigs of RAM, and it stands the most to gain from a 64-bit OS, but why should I? I install Windows using a USB stick, so why should I bother making two separate USB sticks just so that one system can get a 64-bit OS when it really doesn't help my daily computer use in any way??

I don't use any of the heavy-hitter software like 3D Image Editors or Movie Editors, and I don't use my computers for video games, so you tell me what do I stand to gain by going out of my way to get the 64-bit version of OS that will not really give me the edge in anything I do? NONE of the software I use is natively optimized to run exclusively better with 64-bit architectures; hell, I remember going through some serious hassles trying to get some 32-bit plugins for Photoshop to function properly on a 64-bit OS. The simple fact of the matter is that currently, I have nothing to gain from using a 64-bit operating system, and I'm rejecting the luxury of saying "why not" because having one ISO formatted to boot off a USB stick serves my purposes quite simply. What do I do? I do a lot of Word processing, and web browsing, and web building. None of that requires or can utilize 64-bit to any noticeable improvement, and as it stands, Flash is not 64-bit compliant yet either.?

it's ridiculous, the way you refer to us "32-bit users" as if we're some sort of plague or cult that meets up every so often to discuss how we're going to prevent the flow of change in computing and how we refuse to move on etc etc. Not everyone has money to spend on their computers, and not everyone cares enough to do so. That doesn't make them any less of computer users, your arrogance is just jaw-droppingly astounding. I've probably done much more mass-image deployment and installation than you have on small to large corporate networks, and if a client asks which architecture to take, I ask them what they require to be done, what software they will be using, and whether or not they plan to upgrade their hardware in the future. In other words, in my factory line where I make BMW 3 Series cars, why should I start interrupting the line just to take the time and spend the effort to change out the default engine with a supposedly better one, only to gain 10 or 20 HP on a car which is never going to be used in a race? I wouldn't, it's stupid, and inefficient.?

Will I eventually get myself a new desktop/notebook? Absolutely. Will it have at least 4 gigs of RAM? Obviously. Will I then see the need to use 64-bit? Without a doubt; not doign so will actually limit me because I am missing out on RAM that I paid for. But until then, I'm not limited by my 32-bit OS at the moment, and I'm not losing out on any RAM, so honestly, I don't really give a damn.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

They can't upgrade from XP to 7 without a reformat anyways.

Screw 'em then! ;)

I would have figured that Microsoft would have allowed a 32bit XP to 32bit Windows 7 upgrade to encourage the existing user base to give them more cash.

[LiquidSolstice]

Screw 'em then! ;)

I would have figured that Microsoft would have allowed a 32bit XP to 32bit Windows 7 upgrade to encourage the existing user base to give them more cash.

They're completely different versions at their core, how would you go about doing that? You'll end up with a frankenbuild :/

[Fred Derf Veteran]

They're completely different versions at their core, how would you go about doing that? You'll end up with a frankenbuild :/

No. Microsoft allows you to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 without a format. You just need to do it in two steps and purchase Microsoft Vista as well. I'm only surprised that Microsoft didn't support it as a one-step solution to encourage more XP users to migrate to 7. Vista, after all, wasn't the biggest success.

Upgrading from 32bit XP to 32bit Vista:

If you have an upgrade copy of a 32-bit version of Windows Vista, you must start the upgrade while running your existing version of Windows.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Upgrading-from-Windows-XP-to-Windows-Vista

Upgrading from 32bit Vista to 32bit Windows 7:

If you're running a 32-bit version of Windows Vista, you can only upgrade to a 32-bit version of Windows 7.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-CA/windows7/help/upgrading-from-windows-vista-to-windows-7

I'm sure there are a lot of boxes out there running Windows 7 that were originally installed as XP boxes and never reformatted.

[LiquidSolstice]

No. Microsoft allows you to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 without a format. You just need to do it in two steps and purchase Microsoft Vista as well. I'm only surprised that Microsoft didn't support it as a one-step solution to encourage more XP users to migrate to 7. Vista, after all, wasn't the biggest success.

Upgrading from 32bit XP to 32bit Vista:

http://windows.micro...o-Windows-Vista

Upgrading from 32bit Vista to 32bit Windows 7:

http://windows.micro...ta-to-windows-7

I'm sure there are a lot of boxes out there running Windows 7 that were originally installed as XP boxes and never reformatted.

Hmmm. intersting. Ya learn new things each day, I guess. Well, the rock solid Win2K was phased out eventually, I'm sure XP will do the same.

No. Microsoft allows you to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 without a format. You just need to do it in two steps and purchase Microsoft Vista as well. I'm only surprised that Microsoft didn't support it as a one-step solution to encourage more XP users to migrate to 7. Vista, after all, wasn't the biggest success.

Upgrading from 32bit XP to 32bit Vista:

http://windows.micro...o-Windows-Vista

Upgrading from 32bit Vista to 32bit Windows 7:

http://windows.micro...ta-to-windows-7

I'm sure there are a lot of boxes out there running Windows 7 that were originally installed as XP boxes and never reformatted.

Hm. Interesting, I didn't realize you could do it directly. I suppose I just wouldn't want to, seeing as a clean install is the easiest way, in my opinion, to avoid issues, but again, corporate users don't have that luxury.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Hmmm. intersting. Ya learn new things each day, I guess. Well, the rock solid Win2K was phased out eventually, I'm sure XP will do the same.

I would point out that there might be Windows 2000 boxes that were upgraded to XP that were upgraded to Vista that were upgraded to Windows 7. ;)

Actually, if such a box exists (with a 10+ year old installation date) then somebody should win an award for maintaining it.

[LiquidSolstice]

I would point out that there might be Windows 2000 boxes that were upgraded to XP that were upgraded to Vista that were upgraded to Windows 7. ;)

Actually, if such a box exists (with a 10+ year old installation date) then somebody should win an award for maintaining it.

Believe it or not, I've actually seen a case similar to that (I've done enterprise image deployment/upgrades before), and let em tell you, it was a thing of beauty. it was rattled with problems though, things that I had no idea where to begin with. Of course, it was an upgrade from 95 to 98, then to 2k, then to XP, and they were trying to upgrade to Vista, and for some reason the networking was going nuts and then the filesystem of the main system Partition was being read as RAW. Yes, you read that correctly, the C: drive was somehow being read as RAW. It was a nightmare, in teh end after doing an analysis of the effort it would take to get it to work vs fresh installing, the client thankfully went with that.

[soldier1st]

MS should just make Windows 8 a 64bit only release. they are only promoting 32bit by continuing to offer a 32bit version. they should say that Windows 7 will be the last Windows release to support 32bit and that all other oses that get released will be 64bit only.

[neo158]

MS should just make Windows 8 a 64bit only release. they are only promoting 32bit by continuing to offer a 32bit version. they should say that Windows 7 will be the last Windows release to support 32bit and that all other oses that get released will be 64bit only.

That's exactly what Microsoft have said, I can't remember where I saw it but Microsoft stated that Windows 7 would be the last Microsoft OS to support the x86 architecture.

[Lazure]

If people need 32-bit THAT badly, they can still use Windows 7. If Windows XP can last so freakin' long, so can the superior Windows 7. Let Windows 8 be progress for the majority of us who realize 64-bit is the now.

[Mr. Dee]

If people need 32-bit THAT badly, they can still use Windows 7. If Windows XP can last so freakin' long, so can the superior Windows 7. Let Windows 8 be progress for the majority of us who realize 64-bit is the now.

Windows XP is not suppose to be an accurate representation of the Windows product life cycle. It was because of the ambitious release and architectural improvements that were being added to that release. Microsoft intended initially to have Longhorn out as early as 2002, then the scope of the project changed to a major release and was expected in Summer 2004. This would have been about 3 years after Windows XP. We all know what happened after that.

Steve Ballmer and other Microsoft executives promised after Windows Vista's release never to have Windows releases incubate that long (5) years. Windows 7 is a start, it was released 3 years after Windows Vista, and we can probably expect the same for the release after Windows 7. Another thing to take into account the product lifecycle.

Business editions of Windows 7: Professional, Enterprise get 10 years of support

Consumer editions of Windows 7: Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate get 5 years support

So 32 bit consumer editions will stop after 2016 I believe, while business SKU's will be supported until 2020.

We are forgetting a major important factor in the Windows ecosystem, ISV's and IHV's. Microsoft is not the only developer of Windows software and drivers. To have a complete 64 bit Windows ecosystem, a majority of the industry will need to be on board. Making Windows v.Next 64 bit only could trigger a lot of logistical issues. A business in a faraway country with custom apps or drivers used for some embedded device with Windows might not be ready to move to 64 bit or need to. 32 bit drivers cannot work on 64 bit Windows. So, that business might represent millions of other businesses around the world.

This rush to have 64 bit Windows only doesn't seem to have much technical merit and is more like a aesthetic conquest of having simplicity for the sake of simplicity stake. Microsoft has not come out saying, "its so difficult for us to compile a 32 and 64 bit build Windows everyday with those 8,000 servers we have dedicated to the task, sigh". Also, the same deployment tools out there for managing an IT infrastructure work just fine for managing desktops running both 32 and 64 bit Windows. I don't read any blog post from IT Pro's complaining either.

Yes, there are some unique security benefits to Windows 64 bit such as Driver Signing, Kernel Patch Guard and the underlying complexities of writing malicious code for 64 bit Windows in addition to the ability to have access to larger sums of memory. But the last time I checked, the only persons I personally know with 8 GBs and 12 GBs of RAM really Windows enthusiast. That's not a representation of the majority users.

[Lazure]

Windows XP is not suppose to be an accurate representation of the Windows product life cycle. It was because of the ambitious release and architectural improvements that were being added to that release. Microsoft intended initially to have Longhorn out as early as 2002, then the scope of the project changed to a major release and was expected in Summer 2004. This would have been about 3 years after Windows XP. We all know what happened after that.

Steve Ballmer and other Microsoft executives promised after Windows Vista's release never to have Windows releases incubate that long (5) years. Windows 7 is a start, it was released 3 years after Windows Vista, and we can probably expect the same for the release after Windows 7. Another thing to take into account the product lifecycle.

Business editions of Windows 7: Professional, Enterprise get 10 years of support

Consumer editions of Windows 7: Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate get 5 years support

So 32 bit consumer editions will stop after 2016 I believe, while business SKU's will be supported until 2020.

We are forgetting a major important factor in the Windows ecosystem, ISV's and IHV's. Microsoft is not the only developer of Windows software and drivers. To have a complete 64 bit Windows ecosystem, a majority of the industry will need to be on board. Making Windows v.Next 64 bit only could trigger a lot of logistical issues. A business in a faraway country with custom apps or drivers used for some embedded device with Windows might not be ready to move to 64 bit or need to. 32 bit drivers cannot work on 64 bit Windows. So, that business might represent millions of other businesses around the world.

This rush to have 64 bit Windows only doesn't seem to have much technical merit and is more like a aesthetic conquest of having simplicity for the sake of simplicity stake. Microsoft has not come out saying, "its so difficult for us to compile a 32 and 64 bit build Windows everyday with those 8,000 servers we have dedicated to the task, sigh". Also, the same deployment tools out there for managing an IT infrastructure work just fine for managing desktops running both 32 and 64 bit Windows. I don't read any blog post from IT Pro's complaining either.

Yes, there are some unique security benefits to Windows 64 bit such as Driver Signing, Kernel Patch Guard and the underlying complexities of writing malicious code for 64 bit Windows in addition to the ability to have access to larger sums of memory. But the last time I checked, the only persons I personally know with 8 GBs and 12 GBs of RAM really Windows enthusiast. That's not a representation of the majority users.

Go look at new computers being sold in stores today, outside of little itty bitty netbooks. How much RAM do they generally have now? 4GB. 6GB. some even 8GB.

at 4GB, which is the common RAM capacity sold these days, is already demanding a 64-bit OS. Installing 32-bit on a 4GB system is already gimping it by close to 1/4 of the entire RAM capacity.

[Ci7]

That's exactly what Microsoft have said, I can't remember where I saw it but Microsoft stated that Windows 7 would be the last Microsoft OS to support the x86 architecture.

wrong

nearly all intel and AMD CPUs are x86

what are you looking at x86-32(or IA-32)

http://en.wikipedia..../X86#Chronology

So 32 bit consumer editions will stop after 2016 I believe, while business SKU's will be supported until 2020.

actually it is supported until january 2015

nothing would really 'stop' , that just suggest it would stop working by that date :)

[Mr. Dee]

wrong

nearly all intel and AMD CPUs are x86

what are you looking at x86-32(or IA-32)

http://en.wikipedia..../X86#Chronology

actually it is supported until january 2015

nothing would really 'stop' , that just suggest it would stop working by that date :)

I actually was referring to the support of the product, not that it would actually stop functioning.

[stockwiz]

You know, your computing elitism and condescending remarks are really starting to tick me off. I've seen you, countless times, in threads pertaining to customization where all you do is hassle people about their choices and make binary judgment calls about them (For example, The Awesome Window Manager thread), calling them old fashioned, calling them change-a-phobes, and honestly, it'd be nice if you toned it down a little bit.

My netbook has two gigs of RAM. It needs a 32-bit OS. It's not the latest and greatest, but it runs Windows 7 with Aero just fine, and gets close to 10 and a half hours of battery life (with wifi on). Do you mean to tell me that that machine is best suited for XP? That I shouldn't be running 7 soley because it's a 32-bit version?

My desktop has only two gigs of RAM, and it runs just fine for what I need from a computer. Why would I want to bother with 64-bit drivers for my hardware, risk having software that may or may not work, and just make it more of a pain to manage my installation process? Do you mean to tell me that I should change what's currently working just fine, for the sole reason of it not being the "absolute best of the best"?

My laptop has 3 gigs of RAM, and it stands the most to gain from a 64-bit OS, but why should I? I install Windows using a USB stick, so why should I bother making two separate USB sticks just so that one system can get a 64-bit OS when it really doesn't help my daily computer use in any way?

I don't use any of the heavy-hitter software like 3D Image Editors or Movie Editors, and I don't use my computers for video games, so you tell me what do I stand to gain by going out of my way to get the 64-bit version of OS that will not really give me the edge in anything I do? NONE of the software I use is natively optimized to run exclusively better with 64-bit architectures; hell, I remember going through some serious hassles trying to get some 32-bit plugins for Photoshop to function properly on a 64-bit OS. The simple fact of the matter is that currently, I have nothing to gain from using a 64-bit operating system, and I'm rejecting the luxury of saying "why not" because having one ISO formatted to boot off a USB stick serves my purposes quite simply. What do I do? I do a lot of Word processing, and web browsing, and web building. None of that requires or can utilize 64-bit to any noticeable improvement, and as it stands, Flash is not 64-bit compliant yet either.

it's ridiculous, the way you refer to us "32-bit users" as if we're some sort of plague or cult that meets up every so often to discuss how we're going to prevent the flow of change in computing and how we refuse to move on etc etc. Not everyone has money to spend on their computers, and not everyone cares enough to do so. That doesn't make them any less of computer users, your arrogance is just jaw-droppingly astounding. I've probably done much more mass-image deployment and installation than you have on small to large corporate networks, and if a client asks which architecture to take, I ask them what they require to be done, what software they will be using, and whether or not they plan to upgrade their hardware in the future. In other words, in my factory line where I make BMW 3 Series cars, why should I start interrupting the line just to take the time and spend the effort to change out the default engine with a supposedly better one, only to gain 10 or 20 HP on a car which is never going to be used in a race? I wouldn't, it's stupid, and inefficient.

Will I eventually get myself a new desktop/notebook? Absolutely. Will it have at least 4 gigs of RAM? Obviously. Will I then see the need to use 64-bit? Without a doubt; not doign so will actually limit me because I am missing out on RAM that I paid for. But until then, I'm not limited by my 32-bit OS at the moment, and I'm not losing out on any RAM, so honestly, I don't really give a damn.

but then, you shouldn't need to upgrade any of these systems to windows 8. People with old hardware should use the older operating systems. There's no need now to release windows in 32 bit, and this is coming from someone who has a netbook running XP and a laptop with 2 gigs of ram running windows 7 64 bit.

There's absolutely no reason at all to release windows 8 in 32 bit.. none. People with computers that can't support 64 bit shouldn't be installing windows 8, it's really that simple. Windows XP works perfectly fine on my netbook. Windows 7 will be supported long after windows 8 is long gone and 32 bit has really bit the dust, so what's the problem? Why waste resources on two versions when it's not at all needed?

People who are jealous or can't afford to upgrade and say stuff like 'we don't need pci express 3.0... pci express 2.0 barely saturates video cards as it is" among other statements just annoy me. They put their own preferences over progress and the benefits that come with it. There's no such thing as too fast a PC, and it's not like computers are expensive these days that an upgrade is just prohibitively expensive or anything. Every computer sold today except netbooks will run on 64 bit, whether it has 4 gigs of ram or not and netbooks will too by the time windows 8 is here. People who think that 64 bit is slower, are just misinformed and can run their old versions of windows if they are so convinced of this.

[Ci7]

There's absolutely no reason at all to release windows 8 in 32 bit.. none. People with computers that can't support 64 bit shouldn't be installing windows 8, it's really that simple. Windows XP works perfectly fine on my netbook. Windows 7 will be supported long after windows 8 is long gone and 32 bit has really bit the dust, so what's the problem? Why waste resources on two versions when it's not at all needed?

i think Microsoft should enable cross-upgrade(32bit => 64bit) obviously for 32bit Windows 7

[neo158]

wrong

nearly all intel and AMD CPUs are x86

what are you looking at x86-32(or IA-32)

http://en.wikipedia..../X86#Chronology

actually it is supported until january 2015

nothing would really 'stop' , that just suggest it would stop working by that date :)

The 64-bit architecture Microsoft will support Windows 8 is x86-64. What they will stop support for is the standard x86 architecture or 32-bit.

So:

x86-64 = 64-bit

x86 = 32-bit

In other words they will no longer create an x86 version of Windows.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

From what I have heard it will be 64 Bit & 128 Bit.

[Panacik]

From what I have heard it will be 64 Bit & 128 Bit.

lol? :s

[Ci7]

From what I have heard it will be 64 Bit & 128 Bit.

there won't be 128bit

it is just a rumor.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

People talking about the 128bit thing are misunderstanding it.

Certain registers and operations on the CPU can operate on a larger data type than normal, i.e. 32bit Pentium's could operate on 64bit types by using an 128bit register. There's a new set of operations and registers coming out soon that will be 256bits long, allowing programs to perform functions on 128bit long data types by storing both values in the same register.

Edit: That being said, Windows 8 will most likely be 64bit only, by the time it's out 64bit chips will be a decade or more old.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

lol? :s

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/10/microsoft-mulling-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars

The next client version of Windows should therefore follow suit, but apparently Microsoft is going to prepare it for 128-bit as well. We're not saying Windows 8 will definitely come in 64-bit and 128-bit flavors, but Microsoft is moving down that path, and at the very least, Windows 9 just might.

Laugh at the above little man.