Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

[farmeunit]

There's a workaround for that (in fact, I used it to crossgrade Mom from 7 Ultimate x32 to 7 Ultimate x64 when she got her refurb) - it's called the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard. All it requires is an empty hard drive (or bootable partition) as large as (or larger than) the source.

If the reason for insisting on 32-bit is personal preference, say so. Don't try to hide behind altruism.

Files and settings doesn't include most programs.

[ShadowMajestic]

It's about money, not ideology. A lot of people on here seem to think that companies want to push some ideology instead of just doing what they feel will maximize profits.

Its not about the money for microsoft. its about its consumers, what they are using for hardware.

Dont forget Windows XP was meant to be an 64bit only OS. Which they had to rewrite back to 32bit because the market wasnt ready yet.

Plus its already announced that Windows 8 will run on a sh*tload of architectures, one of which will be 32bit.

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.

they supported 16bit all the way upto Vista tho. and still do in Windows 7 with the addition of Windows XP mode.

-

They dropped 32bit for Windows Server because it'll have less impact, if any at all. Plus that windows servers are mainly used with microsoft products, which all been moved to 64 bit already. And the 64bit OS still has the 32bit structure as we find in Windows 7 64bit. Besides the fact that MS is able to let win2003 32bit use upto 16 GB (iirc, could be a bit less or even more) without much troube (for the user). So the RAM isnt really a limiter, altho i've yet to see a win2k8r2 server with <4gb ram.

They'll release 32bit for legacy systems and mobile devices. It'll probably have similar specs to Win7 and able to run on <1ghz 256-512mb ram systems, which are clearly not 32bit.

yea , because really how would they target non-exist processor

Never heard of such processor from AMD and Intel , not even Research prototype one.

AMD is working towards 128bit CPU's tho.

And the AMD Bulldozer research prototype can handle 128bit instructions iirc.

[Ci7]

The fact that Windows 8 will be available as 32 bit on ARM, proves that OEM products will come with Windows 8 32 bit, for both AMD/Intel and ARM SoC's. The millions of Netbooks out there running 32 bit Windows with barely enough power for 64 bit Windows, its logical that Microsoft will continue providing retail upgrade Windows 8 32 bit licenses.

they are actually working on 64bit ARM

there is a good chance ,they would avoid 32bit ARM altogether ;)

http://www.ngohq.com/news/19539-nvidia-project-denver-is-a-64-bit-arm-processor-architecture.html

AMD is working towards 128bit CPU's tho.

And the AMD Bulldozer research prototype can handle 128bit instructions iirc.

of course.

buti doubt we would see it in the *customer* market anytime soon

maybe 25+ years later

for supercomputers, that is another story

Edited March 19, 2011 by Ci7

[y_notm]

Its not about the money for microsoft. its about its consumers, what they are using for hardware.

Dont forget Windows XP was meant to be an 64bit only OS. Which they had to rewrite back to 32bit because the market wasnt ready yet.

No it wasn't. x64 didn't exist when XP was in development and itanium was (and still is) ungodly expensive. There was always going to be a 32-bit version, and it was always going to be the primay architecture.

[remixedcat]

windows 8 will be 64 bit and 128 bit.

[ToneKnee]

windows 8 will be 64 bit and 128 bit.

Sorry, but most likely 32bit and 64bit. 128bit won't even be considered, and even if it does, it'll be a server based SKU aimed at Supercomputers.

[remixedcat]

no I think they should stop making 32 bit operating systems.

[Jan Veteran]

no I think they should stop making 32 bit operating systems.

But they aren't, you should know anyway as you 'supposedly' have Windows 8 :rolleyes:

[epk]

By then even netbooks will have the hardware to run x64 so they should make that version only.

[Jen Smith]

By then even netbooks will have the hardware to run x64 so they should make that version only.

True, but there's still quite a bit of 32 bit machines in active use. Personally, it wouldn't make much financial sense for Microsoft to cut their potential sales down significantly. It would be an awful lot of money to roll the dice on "mayyyybe they'll buy a new computer versus just staying with Windows 7." It is a business after all.

[Jan Veteran]

By then even netbooks will have the hardware to run x64 so they should make that version only.

But what about the PCs now which want to upgrade?

[+dave164 Subscriber¹]

I think there is a high chance of it becoming 64 bit only. Windows Server 2008 R2 was 64 bit only, I expect Windows 8 to be 64 bit only. By then any computer that runs Windows 8 should be 4GB RAM minimum.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I think they could do the switch. A) I think driver support is already there and if the ones who aren't there yet for drivers will be forced to make 64bit drivers if Windows 8 goes 64bit only. The people running computers with CPU's that only support a 32bit operating system are probably running XP or at a least Windows 7. So it's not like they are stuck with a crappy OS.

I think they should make Windows 8 64bit only and keep Windows 7 32 available for resale a little while after. Yes I know this would screw over netbook owners from having the latest version of windows, but netbooks were also a very cheap computer, plus by the time windows 8 comes out their cheap PC will already be a few years old.

[remixedcat]

But they aren't, you should know anyway as you 'supposedly' have Windows 8 :rolleyes:

the build I have is x64 and they didn't provide me with links to a 32 bit and they said there wouldn't be 32 bit in my preview. that's why. I didn't just specify for windows 8 or microsoft in general. I said that anyone as a whole (linux included) should not make any more 32 bit OSes. LOL.

[tanjiajun_34]

If they want make 32 bits, maybe they should be on those lower end edition of Windows. Like Home Basic.

[Bhav]

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?

Not quite true. Most people aren't "choosing"...they're not given a choice to begin with. Example: Dell - when my brothers ordered their laptops last September, they weren't offered 32 bit Windows at all.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Just that there's a difference between "choosing" and "only being offered" 64 bit Windows.

[PGHammer]

Not quite true. Most people aren't "choosing"...they're not given a choice to begin with. Example: Dell - when my brothers ordered their laptops last September, they weren't offered 32 bit Windows at all.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Just that there's a difference between "choosing" and "only being offered" 64 bit Windows.

The only way you will get an x32 flavor of Windows from an OEM of any size today is to specify it - x64 is, and has been, the default since Windows 7 became a six-month-old operating system, and for two very good reasons.

1. There are exactly zero x32-only new CPUs outside of netbooks.

2. New hardware, including peripherals, has two choices - support x64 or not sell.

While the original driver for x64 out in the field was large amounts of RAM, that stopped being the case when reports started coming in about the reduced number of BSODs with x64 compared to x32 flavors of Windows (not merely 7, but even Vista) on otherwise-identical hardware.

Toshiba is a prime example (and especially in North America); all they do are portable PCs (laptops and notebooks - I have no idea if they do netbooks). The Satellite line is their budget/value line of notebooks, and there, x32 isn't even an option! It's telling in that they sell through low-cost big-box retailers (Wal-Mart and Walmart.com especially) - who would think that Wal-Mart, that actually used to sell PCs without an operating system installed at all, would boot x32 flavors of Windows to the curb? Even those OEMs that have desktops around still (Dell, HP, even Lenovo) have made the x64-almost-exclusive move - it's a custom option through their direct-sales configurators only.

[Guest]

Would it be wrong to say that a big chunk of the people still running windows 7 x86 still have a x64 capable processor but don't bother because they have less than 4gb of RAM?

Until I upgraded to 4GB, I stuck with the x86 version of windows 7 even though I could run the x64 version...

If I hadn't have upgraded my RAM, I would have happily installed windows 8 x64 if it were the only option.

[P!P]

I would be nice to see Windows 8 be 64-bit only. Almost every new PC now-a-days (even those with less than 4GB RAM) are coming with 64-bit Windows 7. Nearly every PC made in the last 5 years supports 64-bit. The only reason I think Microsoft probably won't do it is the upgrade problem. Right now you can only upgrade from Vista 32-bit to Windows 7 32-bit and Vista 64-bit to Windows 7 64-bit. Microsoft won't want to leave the 32-bit Vista and 7 users behind. However, I think Microsoft could figure out a good way to handle the upgrade. The only problem is drivers, you'd have the problem of not having 64-bit drivers after a 32-bit to 64-bit upgrade. I think Microsoft could offer the upgrade but warn the user of possibly not having all your drivers installed after the upgrade is complete.

[computerwizkid]

64bit only ain't coming in Windows 8 until more x64 netbooks become popular. Until then x86 will still be in use (though depreciated even more than Windows 7).

[BeerFan]

Please, please, please drop 32bit for good. It needs to die quickly.

If you disagree, perhaps you believe we should still be using our good old 8bit Commodore 64.

[LiquidSolstice]

I think if it's not harming you in any way (half the apps these days still don't take advantage of 64-bit anyway), it really shouldn't matter to you what Microsoft does.

We can argue and bicker about the importance of this all we want, but at the end of the day, Microsoft will analyze how many people still use what and will release that accordingly.

Do I believe 64bit is the future? Hell yes. Do I think we're ready to do a binary switch by forcing the next Windows to be 64bit only? Hell no.

[Subject Delta]

Microsoft should not ditch 32 bit versions of Windows just yet but the uptake of X64 computing is very encouraging.

[PGHammer]

Would it be wrong to say that a big chunk of the people still running windows 7 x86 still have a x64 capable processor but don't bother because they have less than 4gb of RAM?

Until I upgraded to 4GB, I stuck with the x86 version of windows 7 even though I could run the x64 version...

If I hadn't have upgraded my RAM, I would have happily installed windows 8 x64 if it were the only option.

A large part of that is due to what I call the *comfortable shoe* argument.

If you have a pair of comfortable (to you) shoes, you will wear them long beyond the point where they should be worn.

Exacerbating the issue (in the case of Windows 7) is that old argument about x64 being primarily (if not only) for computers with large amounts of RAM.

Despite there being plenty of data on the benefits of Windows x64 over Windows x32, even where the amount of system RAM is sub-4 GB, that theory still persists.

[Zain Adeel]

didnt i read somewhere that win8 will need to be x86 to run on ARM or something???