Windows 8: 32-bit vs. 64-bit

[Ci7]

http://arstechnica.c...8-windows-9.ars

Laugh at the above little man.

if they actually did

say bye bye for 32bit Compitablity layer

then we would had WoW128 :p

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Oh yeah, I forgot about this.

That article is wrong (like really badly wrong), it mentions a made up architecture (IA-128).

[Ci7]

Oh yeah, I forgot about this.

That article is wrong (like really badly wrong), it mentions a made up architecture (IA-128).

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

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

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

IA-128 would mean it was an 128 Bit variant of the Itanium chip.

Microsoft don't develop software for the Itanium anymore, and it was a failure for Intel.

[Sandor]

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

So, I believe, is CIBC in Canada.

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

Which is great, except the desktop I'm typing this on has run everything from Windows 2k all the way through Windows 7 (32bit currently, has run 64-bit server just fine). So no, when Windows 8 comes along, I'll put whatever version they have of it on this desktop, and if that version happens to be 64-bit only, then whatever, I'll put 64-bit on it. I'm not hindering progress, and I'm not jealous of upgrades because I don't need upgrades to do what I want to do.?

I'm not preaching to anyone that Windows 8 should be 32-bit only, I'm responding to Lazure because I'm sick of his computer elitism for anyone who doesn't use 64-bit Win7 with full Aero.?

Also, let me repost this from my last reply so that people actually understand what the majority of 32-bit users' opinions are on the matter right now (not what Lazure somehow thinks it is).

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 doing 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.

Regardless of whether or not I'm using 32-bit software, Microsoft will continue to advance 64-bit progress. It's not like they're going to say "Oh dear, he's running a 32-bit version of our OS, let's HALT development and progress ENTIRELY".

[Sir Topham Hatt]

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 would say this is because 50% of PC users don't know about 32/64 bit.

If Microsoft pushed forward and made it 64 bit exclusivly, then we can all progress forward, easier, quicker and better rather than still holding on to the old.

Same with XP/Vista. They should stop releasing patches and updates for it as soon as Windows 8 is released, therefore encouraging everyone to use Windows 7 or 8, pushing people forward into the future. It would also show the company no longer supports the use of this particular OS.

[ThaCrip]

the way i see it...

if Windows 7 will be available for many years down the road then i see no point of Windows 8 supporting 32bit simply because most PC's by the time Windows 8 comes out will surely have 64bit support on them and the ones that don't probably will be to old to run it anyways.

bottom line... time to ditch 32bit OS's in the future for MS.

[Ci7]

Same with XP/Vista. They should stop releasing patches and updates for it as soon as Windows 8 is released, therefore encouraging everyone to use Windows 7 or 8, pushing people forward into the future. It would also show the company no longer supports the use of this particular OS.

by the time win8 is out

XP/vista would limited already "security patches" only

[greenwizard88]

Microsoft needs to keep 32bit around for upgrade sales. Microsoft wants to push 64bit for simplicity.

So why not do both?

Limit OEM's from installing 32bit Windows 8 on their computers, but provide a 32bit SKU for enterprise customers, and Windows Anytime Upgrade customers. Microsoft would only have to offer a 32 bit version of Windows 8 Business (volume license) and could push the Anytime Upgrade customers into getting Windows 8 Business, too. Windows Starter, Home, and Ultimate would all be 64 bit only.

The only people who would get the short end of the deal are the people who want a 32bit Windows 8 for their home computer from 2002, or netbook owners. And because most people who have a computer from 2002 aren't going to upgrade to the latest OS, really you only have to worry about netbook owners. And they would still have the option to buy the business edition using Windows Anytime Upgrade.

This would also send a signal to OEM and Enterprise customers that Windows 32bit is on its way out, and they should look at their upgrade path to 64bit CPU's for Windows 9.

[yowanvista]

32-bit is for old dino PCs

64-bit is the future

[Owen W Veteran]

the way i see it...

if Windows 7 will be available for many years down the road then i see no point of Windows 8 supporting 32bit simply because most PC's by the time Windows 8 comes out will surely have 64bit support on them and the ones that don't probably will be to old to run it anyways.

bottom line... time to ditch 32bit OS's in the future for MS.

Won't happen. Enterprises are stubborn, and often don't have 64-bit hardware. It would stunt adoption.

[Lazure]

Won't happen. Enterprises are stubborn, and often don't have 64-bit hardware. It would stunt adoption.

As true as that often is about stubbornness in the business world (which is often backed by financial reasons), most of these businesses still relying on the old architecture (or in this case, 32-bit-only hardware) specifically are likely still using XP, or maybe even older than that, and likely don't plan on upgrading to begin with. Even if they do upgrade, they don't always upgrade to the latest, either. Case in point: After Windows 7 was out and as was IE8, there were still businesses running IE6 on XP. Instead of upgrading to IE8, which was the latest out, they actually upgraded to IE7 instead.

That said, whether or not Windows 8 is 64-bit only... the businesses might end up only upgrading to Windows 7 anyhow instead of Windows 8. Windows 8 being 64-bit would do one of three things: make the business upgrade their machines, force the businesses to upgrade only to windows 7 instead of 8 to utilize 32-bit, or simply not upgrade at all (which tends to be the most common choice nowadays).

I was very pleased when I went to Kob?'s this weekend, that all their machines were running Windows 7 -with Aero enabled-. Of course, I have no idea if it was 32-bit or 64-bit since that's not obvious at a glance. It does show that some businesses DO adopt the new stuff, but it's rare.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I was very pleased when I went to Kobé's this weekend, that all their machines were running Windows 7 -with Aero enabled-. Of course, I have no idea if it was 32-bit or 64-bit since that's not obvious at a glance. It does show that some businesses DO adopt the new stuff, but it's rare.[/font][/size]

Are you talking about a restaurant chain? That's hardly indicative of a corporate Fortune 500 customer. The enterprise customers aren't being cheap they're being safe. They like to run things that have been tested for years so there are no surprise downtimes.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Fred Derf
their -> they're (I don't usually do that)

[Lazure]

Are you talking about a restaurant chain? That's hardly indicative of a corporate Fortune 500 customer. The enterprise customers aren't being cheap their being safe. They like to run things that have been tested for years so there are no surprise downtimes.

A business is a business. Some are big, some are small, but they all share the same issues. Sure, the bigger corps will have a bigger cost changing out and upgrading and have more to risk, but the impact is still there and relative. If the Kob?'s cashier's station is down, it's still gonna stall business.

[Mr. Gibs]

A business is a business. Some are big, some are small, but they all share the same issues. Sure, the bigger corps will have a bigger cost changing out and upgrading and have more to risk, but the impact is still there and relative. If the Kob?'s cashier's station is down, it's still gonna stall business.

Not really, they would either do just cash transactions or take down the numbers and call another store to process it.

If a fortune 500 company upgraded to Windows 7 and found out that some part of their software longer works, thats a massive downtime.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

A business is a business. Some are big, some are small, but they all share the same issues. Sure, the bigger corps will have a bigger cost changing out and upgrading and have more to risk, but the impact is still there and relative. If the Kobé's cashier's station is down, it's still gonna stall business.

The bigger the business the more conservative the mindset. Nobody wants to be responsible for a million dollars worth of downtime.

The infrastructure also tends to get a lot more complicated (more users in more locations all depending on the same data).

[freeeekyyy]

If they keep x86 architecture in Windows 8, do you want it Windows 9 aswell? Sorry for thread-jacking, but if the 16-bit platform never died off, would it still be used today on Windows 7?

No, it wouldn't, because NT was never 16-bit.

[PGHammer]

Won't happen. Enterprises are stubborn, and often don't have 64-bit hardware. It would stunt adoption.

Even enterprises get the hint, and as their old hardware gets replaced/refreshed, most of it has already been replaced with x64 hardware - in fact, x64 hardware is already showing up as refurbs.

Example - most, if not all, of those Prescott-based P4s are x64 (my Mom's P4, a refurb, is running 7 Ultimate x64 just fine). With limited exceptions, that is true of most refurbs of that same age or newer.

The problem has never been the hardware, but the applications side, even in enterprises. (Back when I was working for Big Cable Company, the holdup in our *planned* migration to Windows 2000 from NT4WS was application costs, not the hardware. In fact, when we DID migrate, we kept the hardware.)

I would wager that the issue with those enterprises that are still running XP is application upgrade costs, not hardware.

[PGHammer]

As true as that often is about stubbornness in the business world (which is often backed by financial reasons), most of these businesses still relying on the old architecture (or in this case, 32-bit-only hardware) specifically are likely still using XP, or maybe even older than that, and likely don't plan on upgrading to begin with. Even if they do upgrade, they don't always upgrade to the latest, either. Case in point: After Windows 7 was out and as was IE8, there were still businesses running IE6 on XP. Instead of upgrading to IE8, which was the latest out, they actually upgraded to IE7 instead.

That said, whether or not Windows 8 is 64-bit only... the businesses might end up only upgrading to Windows 7 anyhow instead of Windows 8. Windows 8 being 64-bit would do one of three things: make the business upgrade their machines, force the businesses to upgrade only to windows 7 instead of 8 to utilize 32-bit, or simply not upgrade at all (which tends to be the most common choice nowadays).

I was very pleased when I went to Kob?'s this weekend, that all their machines were running Windows 7 -with Aero enabled-. Of course, I have no idea if it was 32-bit or 64-bit since that's not obvious at a glance. It does show that some businesses DO adopt the new stuff, but it's rare.

And it's still applications and the cost of replacing/upgrading them that is the driver there - not hardware.

The cost of PC hardware vs. capabilities has dropped over the years (prices have either stayed constant or dropped, while capabilities have gone up, even with basic enterprise-level desktops). However, the cost of upgrading the software, especially a major custom line-of-business application, can, and often does, outstrip the hardware cost. (That can be the real reason you may go into an enterprise and see newer, if not new, hardware running old software.)

[PGHammer]

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.

The OEMs (except for netbooks) are pushing x64-only today. In fact, Toshiba and Dell (and HP) load 7 x64 by default - 7 x32 is a custom option! (And if you have 3 GB or more of RAM, it's not even an option.)

The same applies with the companies of the Acer Group (ASUS as well) - again, except for netbooks.

x32 flavors of Windows are on two sorts of computers - netbooks and refurbs. (And it's not even always true of refurbs - I'm starting to see even those with 7 Home Premium or Professional x64 preloaded. While Mom's refurb originally came with XP Pro x32, it's running 7 Ultimate x64 quite comfortably.)

Yes - if you have (or are going to have) 4 GB or more of RAM and run Windows, x64 is your only choice. However, the corollary of that - that if you have now, and always will have, less than 4 GB, than x32 is your best choice - is far from true.

[Mr. Dee]

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.

[PGHammer]

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.

I referred to netbooks being an exception (if not the only exception). However, is there a BYON (Build Your Own Netbook) market? If not, 32-bit can indeed be limited-distribuition (just as 7 Starter is today). Unless the "white-box" netbook market replaces the "white-box" notebook market (which I don't see happening, due to far fewer customization options in netbooks vs. notebooks) there would be little need for 8 x32 outside of that niche.

[Mr. Dee]

Microsoft encourages persons who have a computer with a 32 bit version of Windows Vista upgrade to Windows 7 32 bit to avoid the requirements of formatting, reinstalling apps and drivers required when migrating to Windows 7 64 bit. Microsoft announced last year that nearly 50 percent of customers are running 64 bit Windows. You might call that growing proof of 64 bit Windows strength in the market place, but you need to realize, that also means, there is another 50 percent of Windows users running the 32 bit OS. This is just Windows 7 alone by the way, we have not taken into account Windows Vista 32 bit and even Windows XP 32 bit systems that are still capable (I own one myself). Of course, this could mean, persons have not upgraded or plan to move to 64 bit Windows 7 in the near future, reasons include, not compatible with a device or app they use, or the company they work for don't support it whether its a ERP, VPN Client or some in house app. I participate in the Microsoft Answers forum regularly and I am always answering questions about downgrading from 64 bit to 32 bit Windows 7. Microsoft is not gonna ignore a market of customers that runs in the hundreds of millions because 64 bit is the future.

It is at no significant cost for the company to compile both 32 and 64 bit architectures. If they can add another processor architecture to the mix, it proves they are doing fine. Its not just about Netbooks, standard laptops, desktops and just meeting the needs of consumers and businesses is also important. Not every solution needs 64 bit. A healthy installation of 32 bit Windows is out there, not all are interested or need to migrate to 64 bit Windows, I am sure Microsoft does not want to pass that by with at least a reason to upgrade to 32 bit Windows 8. I also don't see the point of compiling just for Netbooks, sounds like a waste of resources, market trends might predict in the future that Netbooks are the biggest loser in the marketshare.

[PGHammer]

Microsoft encourages persons who have a computer with a 32 bit version of Windows Vista upgrade to Windows 7 32 bit to avoid the requirements of formatting, reinstalling apps and drivers required when migrating to Windows 7 64 bit. Microsoft announced last year that nearly 50 percent of customers are running 64 bit Windows. You might call that growing proof of 64 bit Windows strength in the market place, but you need to realize, that also means, there is another 50 percent of Windows users running the 32 bit OS. This is just Windows 7 alone by the way, we have not taken into account Windows Vista 32 bit and even Windows XP 32 bit systems that are still capable (I own one myself). Of course, this could mean, persons have not upgraded or plan to move to 64 bit Windows 7 in the near future, reasons include, not compatible with a device or app they use, or the company they work for don't support it whether its a ERP, VPN Client or some in house app. I participate in the Microsoft Answers forum regularly and I am always answering questions about downgrading from 64 bit to 32 bit Windows 7. Microsoft is not gonna ignore a market of customers that runs in the hundreds of millions because 64 bit is the future.

It is at no significant cost for the company to compile both 32 and 64 bit architectures. If they can add another processor architecture to the mix, it proves they are doing fine. Its not just about Netbooks, standard laptops, desktops and just meeting the needs of consumers and businesses is also important. Not every solution needs 64 bit. A healthy installation of 32 bit Windows is out there, not all are interested or need to migrate to 64 bit Windows, I am sure Microsoft does not want to pass that by with at least a reason to upgrade to 32 bit Windows 8. I also don't see the point of compiling just for Netbooks, sounds like a waste of resources, market trends might predict in the future that Netbooks are the biggest loser in the marketshare.

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.