Does 32bit windows still make sense?

[xaira]

This is a discussion looking for views on the topic x86 vs x64. All of even the lowest end processors today are x64 capable, most tekkies use x64 anyway, most companies that matter support their products on x64 platform. What platform do u use, and do you think it made sense to make an x86 version of windows 7?

 

[buzznut]

Well, it still makes sense for people who don't need more than 3 gigs of ram. I'll use my dad as an example.

He is retired and lives in Arizona. He has been working with pc's his whole life, but now he just uses them at home. His needs are simple, he just needs a pc to surf, email, and pictures and video. Family photos and movies are most important to him. I have been trying to convince him that Win7 is the real deal, but he was extremely reluctant. No need to move from XP.

He came out for a visit, and I encouraged him to use my laptop to pick up his email and whatnot. By the 3rd day he was asking me about the RC, which I dl and burned for him. I think that is why win7 is going to be tremendously successful, people only have to try it for a short while to fall in love. He ABSOLUTELY did not want the 64bit version. He wants it to work with his old cameras and printers, etc.

For people like my dad, 32 bit is still needed and MS needs to provide that. Maybe by the next version of windows you could eliminate it, but I find that doubtful. More likely the NEXT version (Win9 lets call it for now). Then you could say lets move everyone from 32bit.

I have Win7 64 on my home pc and my laptop. I will never go back. My wife has Win7 32 and is almost as adamant as my dad about not migrating to 64.

I have struggled with XP 64 for about 6-7 months and I finally gave up and moved to Win7. XP64 simply is not being supported by software and hardware manufacturers, and its only gonna get worse, not better. I am finding win7 to be faster and more responsive, but I am certain some of that is the "new OS smell". Wait till I have 2 tons of cruft in 2 months!
Its too bad that home computers are not more like consoles, they left 32 bit far behind with the PS1. I don't think they even use 64bit any more, but I could be wrong about that.

I'm afraid we'll still have 32 bit for a little longer.

 

[mickeypowelll]

yea what he said

If you have old software or hardware/printers cameras etc. that are not compatable with 64 bit and you dont plan on replacing it then your stuck with 32 bit

 

[sminlal]

It makes sense for there to be an x86 version of Windows 7 because there's a helluva lot of hardware out that that is NOT 64-bit capable but IS capable of running Windows 7. Netbooks are a prime example.

On the other hand, history teaches us that software expands to fill available memory - memory prices are getting so low that over the coming years more and more software will either need or will run much better on systems with more than 4GB of addressable space.

64-bit is not a requirement for most people today, but I have no doubt that it will be in 4 or 5 years time. Since most of today's new systems will still be in use 4 or 5 years from now, I think anyone buying now should go with a 64-bit system unless they have a very specific purpose in mind and they know that 64-bit will NOT be needed for it.

 

[xaira]

i use an hp deskjet 840c and thats not new, i also download images from my camera that is 6 years old, both work flawlessly on win 7 x64, all im sayin is that anything u can do on win x86, you can do on win x64, and if yu ever find urself in want of more than 3gb of ram, you dont need to get another license, and most pcs today are sold with more than 2gb ram and software developers will look at this and say hey, maybe i dont need to optimise this software to run on less ram quite as much as i used to, i know microsoft is just prolonging the inevitable, ut i simply dont see a good enough reason why.

 

[Scotteq]

Another vote for 64 - Unless you have some hardware that can't easily be replaced, IMHO, there's no reason to stay x86 any more.


Never had a reason to use XP64, but switched to Vista 64 out of curiosity since it's available for "free" with the Technet subscription I paid for. Victims of the transition were a Creative SoundBlaster audio card and an old router I was looking for an excuse to replace anyhow, and.... That's it. Stayed with it since, and will not be going back.

Also - If the various Internet rumors are to be believed (It's OK to laugh!), then Windows 8 will be available in an x64 version only.

 

[baddad]

I have Five computers in my home 4 with Vista 64bit one with w7 64 bit and they all run fine.

 

[cjl]

I run the x86 RC on my eee

The Atom N270 isn't x64 compatible, so there wasn't much choice in the matter. Other than that though, I don't see any reason to avoid 64 bit.

 

[xaira]

all the semprons support x64, how could intel be whats slowing us down, it seems contradictory dosent it?

 

[sminlal]

Also - If the various Internet rumors are to be believed (It's OK to laugh!), then Windows 8 will be available in an x64 version only.

This is already true of Windows Server 2008 R2, so it would be completely logical for the next generation of desktop OS.

 

[Scotteq]

Yah - I happen to feel it's perfectly reasonable we well. But in the absence of a press release from Microsoft saying so, it's still best to say it's a rumor.

 

[xaira]

wont it cost more for them to make windows on both platforms than it will cost them to just make it for just 1?

 

[Scotteq]

They already do make two versions, so there isn't any cost involved MSFT haven't already factored in. As pointed out already, the direction is clearly 64 bit. It's jsut that there is an awful lot invested in 32 bit. Hence the transitional 32/64 arrangement.

Going forward, i would expect less and less additional R&D investment on the x86 side of the house, as that code base should be in maintenance mode rather than the subject of serious ongoing development. Conversely, we should see more and more in the x64. As pointed out by Sim - Server 2008 R2 is already 64 bit only. And the rumor is that Windows 8 will be 64 bit only as well.


One thing I'd like to point out that hasn't been mentioned yet is that OEM PC makers have already made the leap: Gateway is 100% x64 on the desktop now, and it's available on their better laptops as well. Dell are using x64 on everything but their value lines. And HP are also using x64 on everything with more than 3GB of memory. Given these are the largest consumer makers, I'd opine the tipping point in the change from x86 to x64 has already been reached.

 

[xaira]

exactly, its already been reached, then why spend the xtra making windows 7 x86, whoever is on vista x86, will most liely not spend the money to get win 7 x86 which looks so much like vista, i use vista sp2 on one of my machines, and its just peachy, but if they say something like, microsoft has fully transitioned to x64 os, people will be like hey this is something brand new that i might actually want to sped money on.

 

[reconviperone1]

Personally, im gonna dual boot, love xp, but windows 7 is like apple good

 

[Gin Fushicho]

For me , the answer is this: It's like asking back in the day if having 16-bit would still be a better option then 32-bit even if 32-bit is being pushed.

 

[cjl]

...but windows 7 is like apple good

You really think it sucks that much?

 

[leo2kp]

I guess if Win 7 is going to be used on Atom machines, they better have a 32bit version, aye?

 

[techgeek]

As far as the debate for X64 or X86, the two common pieces of hardware that don't seem to be getting 64 bit drivers is scanners and wireless adapters. I have been running Win 7 64 since the beta, and so far I love it. That said, there is no chance that Canon is going to put out 64 bit drivers for my scanner. I have no reason to replace my scanner as it does everything I need it to do and scanner technology hasn't advanced enough to make me want a new one. So for me, I will likely dual boot. Not a huge issue for me, I have been doing that since 95 when I began dabbling in Linux.

When it comes to some older people, and technologically challenged people (those people that only care that it works when they power it up), it's likely that a 32 bit operating systems is still for them. Most software is still 32 bit. Thus far I haven't found any 32 bit software that out and out doesn't work in a 64 bit OS, but sometimes they need a little tweaking to run properly. As for native 64 bit software, I have had some hit an miss experiences. I find the 32 bit Crysis executable much more stable than the 64 bit. Same goes for HL2. Of course as things progress these problems will disappear.

As far as cameras and printers go, I think that MicroSoft has done a pretty good job of providing workable drivers for printers. Cameras that connect using USB are pretty much supported out of the box. I haven't found one other piece of hardware other than my scanner that doesn't work. I had to search a little to get my Linksys WUSB600 working, Linksys didn't have any 64 bit drivers. Not a huge issue if you are an experienced user, but not as easy as plug and play either. If I remember correctly the problem with the wireless adapter was in Win 7 X64 Beta, but there were drivers when I installed Win 7 X64 RC.

Anyway, I believe that you will likely see at the very least Windows 7 successor will have a 32 bit variant. Though it may suffer from poor support like Windows XP X64 was/is, as I suspect by that time 64 bit will be the defacto standard.

 

[Aventinus_64]

all im sayin is that anything u can do on win x86, you can do on win x64,

I wish what you say was true. I have what some would consider the best PVR system. The software is called BEYOND TV and it works flawlessly and has too many features to mention here. BEYOND TV does not run on a 64 bit OS at this time, all though it may in the future. I also have several obscure programs that I use that absolutely do not run on Windows 7 or XP-64. These are games and programs that that my children and grand-children love. Some of this software is from the early 1990's and the publishers no longer exist. Change for the sake of change is of no value. I have programs that are very useful for me and fun for the children, I paid for these programs and they work. In many cases I don't even think I could get an updated version. But let's assume for a minute I could, why should I update the software if the updates don't provide anything useful? I absolutely will not update software just because MS has made a change nor will I "learn" all over again a new interface to familiar programs.

So IT IS A FACT, MANY programs and some very important ones WILL NOT RUN ON x64.

I will run multi boot so those programs or games that I buy that run best on x64 will be installed on the OS they work best.

 

[Scotteq]

Avent - Or if you like, you can install a virtualization environment (like VM Ware) and run them in the appropriate OS that way.

 

[sminlal]

As far as the debate for X64 or X86, the two common pieces of hardware that don't seem to be getting 64 bit drivers is scanners and wireless adapters.

I'm afraid that a lot of manufacturers seem to view these shifts in the desktop platform as an opportunity to sell more product. They know that if they don't release new drivers then people will be forced to upgrade.

That having been said, I want to give kudos to Epson. I bought an Epson Perfection 2400 Photo scanner in 2004, and Epson has created 64-bit Vista drivers for it. I've just installed those drivers under Windows 7 and the scanner works perfectly.

Good work Epson!

 

[xaira]

to me netbook users can continue using xp, all im sayin is that if you have windows vista 32 bit chances are that you dont plan to run windows 7, the people who are accustomed using their old hardware, arent exactlu upgrade junkies, so i think they would look at a couple screenshots of windows 7 , compare to vista and see it as a waste of money, byt these are just my thoughts, i see that most businesses didnt opt for vista, i guess this might have been a bid to win them back, but as i always say, possibly the most intelligent thing a single human being has ever uttered, if it aint broke, dont fix it, especially when you rely on it to make money for you.

 

[cjl]

Actually, I find 7 x86 to run much better on my netbook (an eee 901) than XP did - XP lagged enough that I wiped it and installed Ubuntu, but 7 is completely usable (and actually gets a significantly longer battery life than either XP or Ubuntu). As long as the Atom is x86 only, I see netbooks as a great place for x86 win7. I agree that all normal computers should use x64 though, with perhaps a few rare exceptions.

 

[jitpublisher]

99% of the people in the world who use computers do not "need" a 64 bit OS.
The vast, vast, vast majority of people using a computer are sitting in an office, running excel, word, and interfacing with a Lansa or AS400 system somewhere.
The rest are at home checking email, downloading music, surfing myspace, and checking out porn. You can do all this perfectly fine with a couple gig of memory and 32 bit XP.