Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

[ipeters61]

I say Microsoft should keep releasing 32-bit Windows until the market share drops considerably. For example, Windows 3.1, released in 1992, was a 16-bit operating system. In 1985, Intel produced the 386, which was a 32-bit processor. However, released in 1993, Windows NT 3.1 was a 32-bit operating system - and in 1995, Windows 95 was released as a 16/32-bit hybrid operating system.

[Gotenks98]

It needs to be 64bit only. I figure if you cant run 64bit by now windows 8 is going to run like **** anyways on low ram systems.

[BeerFan]

The low prices and increasing need for >4 Gb of RAM will drive the move to 64bit. Windows 8 should be offered as 64bit as the standard, with 32bit available as an option. Rather like Windows XP 64bit was.

[fehuris]

Maybe its best to release Win 8 in both 32-bit and 64-bit. However with the market now favoring 64-bit PCs, if Microsoft can push the x64 version of Windows 8 enough, Windows 9 can be a 64-bit only release. Removing 32-bit from Win 8 would definitely cause chaos in enterprise world!

[Ricky65]

Here is what people keep seeming to forget when it comes down to the 32 vs 64 OS.

How many programs are written in 32bit? How many are written in 64bit?

The large majority of software still to this day INCLUDING games are written in 32bit which means software STILL has to be developed to take full advantage of the extra memory. In a 32bit OS each application/game is only limited to 2gb of memory each anyways.

So until developers start producing software to take advantage of it whats the point?

Oh and lets not forget that consumers are the biggest reason why 64bit became so mainstream for. People would buy a computer with 4gb of ram and a 32bit OS and they'd only see 3.25 and be like "Uh where is my 4gb of ram!?!?" so manufacturers starting throwing 64bit onto systems and the consumer was none the wiser.

From my experience as a C++ developer, I think the main reason most game developers haven't moved to 64bit is because they use a lot of inline assembler and other 64-bit incompatabilities in their base code. For example, size_t is 32 bits on x86 and 64 bits on x64. The lack of investment in porting code to x64 is meagre from my experience, although it should get better in time.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

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.

i think you share the same misconception and opinion of all 32-bit users. wasting resources? that makes no sense. "take advantage??" sorry, but you just sound naive on the topic.

i think the reason that 32-bit users havent switched is 1. they dont understand 2. dont care and 3. just use whatever their pc was bundled with

i cant think of any modern processors are 64-bit. the original Atom cpu's werent, but the modern Atoms are 64-bit.

imo, MS should go 64-bit-only on Windows 8. if youre still running a 32-bit pentium 4 from 2002, then you shouldnt be running Windows 8 anyway.

[Alladaskill17]

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)

Do they really? I mean obviously they code for future-readiness as well as compatibility, but I was just curious where you found those numbers.

[Hurricane Andrew]

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

Yeah, but how many people actually "choose" their operating system. The vast majority of consumers just pick up the Best Buy or Staples circular, look at the price, and maybe the hardware specs, and make their decision based on that alone. I'd wager less than half of consumers don't even know if they are running 32 or 64 bit OS's.

[Twiddle]

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)?

I run Win7 32bit and 64bit on separate partitions. But, the last time I loaded the 64 bit partition was months ago. I had so many compatibility issues with drivers and programs with 64 bit that I just couldn't take it anymore, so I started over with both. Same drivers I had issues with on 64, run seamlessly on 32. That is why I prefer 32bit. I'm not saying 64bit is bad, and I will adopt it more so later, when compatibility kinks are worked out.

[hagjohn]

I run Win7 32bit and 64bit on separate partitions. But, the last time I loaded the 64 bit partition was months ago. I had so many compatibility issues with drivers and programs with 64 bit that I just couldn't take it anymore, so I started over with both. Same drivers I had issues with on 64, run seamlessly on 32. That is why I prefer 32bit. I'm not saying 64bit is bad, and I will adopt it more so later, when compatibility kinks are worked out.

Really? I've been running 7 x64 since it came out and I used XP and Vista in x64 as well. I've had no issues with 7 at all with compatibility. You must have some weird hardware or software that you are using.

[Detection]

I run 7 SP1 64bit on my desktop w/4GB ram, for main systems, powerful systems, everyday not going to run out of ram opening a text file system, 64bit is a must

I run 7 SP1 32bit on my laptop, why.. because I had a folder with all the drivers for it all ready.

It would run 64bit no problem, but for a dualcore laptop with 2GB ram it was not worth the effort downloading all the drivers again, had 64bit running on it before but no major reason to go out of my way to get it running on it again unless I am bored one day.

I think once we have the majority of software made in 64bit MS should drop 32bit compatibility in their 64bit OS's, thus removing 95% of malware being an issue, I don't remember there being many 64bit virus's out there, I know there are "some" or one, but it would greatly improve security having the same lack of support for 32bit as we have for 16bit on a 64bit OS.

Keep 32bit OS's for another few years until people catch up with modern day, sell the 64bit OS by stating most malware can not be run on it, get 64bit more mainstream and devs coding in 64bit, then make "Windows 10 x64_x128"

I think this is going to be the only way MS gain a better rep with windows, the harder it becomes to make a virus for an OS, the less script kiddies are going to be able to manage to create them, and if you do get infected with a 64bit virus, it will be a day to be proud of, like getting hit by a car, if it is a Bugatti, your going to be way less embarrassed than if it was a 15 year old Fiesta

[neo158]

I run 7 SP1 64bit on my desktop w/4GB ram, for main systems, powerful systems, everyday not going to run out of ram opening a text file system, 64bit is a must

I run 7 SP1 32bit on my laptop, why.. because I had a folder with all the drivers for it all ready.

It would run 64bit no problem, but for a dualcore laptop with 2GB ram it was not worth the effort downloading all the drivers again, had 64bit running on it before but no major reason to go out of my way to get it running on it again unless I am bored one day.

I think once we have the majority of software made in 64bit MS should drop 32bit compatibility in their 64bit OS's, thus removing 95% of malware being an issue, I don't remember there being many 64bit virus's out there, I know there are "some" or one, but it would greatly improve security having the same lack of support for 32bit as we have for 16bit on a 64bit OS.

Keep 32bit OS's for another few years until people catch up with modern day, sell the 64bit OS by stating most malware can not be run on it, get 64bit more mainstream and devs coding in 64bit, then make "Windows 10 x64_x128"

I think this is going to be the only way MS gain a better rep with windows, the harder it becomes to make a virus for an OS, the less script kiddies are going to be able to manage to create them, and if you do get infected with a 64bit virus, it will be a day to be proud of, like getting hit by a car, if it is a Bugatti, your going to be way less embarrassed than if it was a 15 year old Fiesta

Or Microsoft could do what they did with Vista x64 and Windows 8 x86 available on request!!

[BeerFan]

Really? I've been running 7 x64 since it came out and I used XP and Vista in x64 as well. I've had no issues with 7 at all with compatibility. You must have some weird hardware or software that you are using.

+1

I've only had a couple of issues with finding drivers for really old systems. Everything else has been smooth sailing.

[Ci7]

Do they really? I mean obviously they code for future-readiness as well as compatibility, but I was just curious where you found those numbers.

my educated guess :blush:

[WAR-DOG]

Sorry for troll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPEFK9g-UuM

[PGHammer]

I run Win7 32bit and 64bit on separate partitions. But, the last time I loaded the 64 bit partition was months ago. I had so many compatibility issues with drivers and programs with 64 bit that I just couldn't take it anymore, so I started over with both. Same drivers I had issues with on 64, run seamlessly on 32. That is why I prefer 32bit. I'm not saying 64bit is bad, and I will adopt it more so later, when compatibility kinks are worked out.

I run Win7 32bit and 64bit on separate partitions. But, the last time I loaded the 64 bit partition was months ago. I had so many compatibility issues with drivers and programs with 64 bit that I just couldn't take it anymore, so I started over with both. Same drivers I had issues with on 64, run seamlessly on 32. That is why I prefer 32bit. I'm not saying 64bit is bad, and I will adopt it more so later, when compatibility kinks are worked out.

Not many companies have a single common driver for x32 and x64 - in fact, the only companies I know of that do are Logitech and Microsoft, and only for keyboards and mice. (The control software is bitness-specific, however.) AMD and nVidia, which merged their Vista and Windows 7 driver trees shortly after Windows 7's launch, still maintain bitness-specific drivers. (That is likely why you still have driver issues, as you are *used to* looking for x32 drivers.)

That said, I switched from x32 to x64 with my Celeron E1200 two years ago - prior to the launch of Windows 7, and the only time I run an x32 or less flavor of Windows is in a virtual machine. (The only x32 computer in the house is Mom's laptop: even her desktop is x64 - 7 Ultimate x64 to be precise.)