Does 32bit windows still make sense?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

@cji win 7 runs better than xp, i really didnt see that coming, wat edition, ultimate, basic, home?

@jitpublisher
thats wat iwas saying, most people havent even seen the need to replace their xp 32bit computers, so why did they bother with 32bit win7, but if it runs that good on a netbook, then i guess i understand, i hope the next gen atoms support x64, and even if you dont need an x64 os that dosent mean you cant use one, or that you wont see benefits from using one.

@medjohnson77
thx for the vote, but will 64bit windows run worse on 2gb than 32bit windows, no it wont and thats my only point.

Wait for 64bit 3D pron, thatll change everyones minds

I'v been running x64 OSes since 2006 on my main gaming/CAD PCs. And yes, I run XP x64, Vista. x64 and now Win 7 x64. I also run Fedora/SUSE x64 ( I don't know why, but I don't like Ubuntu)

What Im really wondering is, Larrabee will be 32bit as well, and tho 64bit gaming is a long ways off, itll have to be a total redesign by then as well

wen you say 32 bit as well, do you mean 32+64 or just 32?

It started as ultimate, but I stripped it down somewhat with vlite.

I didn't mean to make it sound like it would run worse, I agree I would rather have the 64 bit.

if win 7 ultimate runs better than xp on 1gb of ram, then i better stop calling 7, vista with some improvements, i installed vista once on a socket a with 512 mb of ram, and the result was slightly bearable, but i wouldnt recommend it. intel needs to stop leaving its lower end clients in the past!!!!

This is like screaming satan lives in a church while dressed up as the devil but here goes.

I could come back here later in ten years and I know for sure XP is going to be the most used os then. 64 bit? That's where windows xp 64 is finally going to rear it's ugly head. LOL!

I'll probably upgrade to 64 bit by then, Idk, Windows XP with SP2 is nice for now. Wasn't for the damn purposely incompatibility issues with SP2 I'd be fine with no SP.

Sounds crazy I know, but they thought that back then for thinking that Intel would release a dual core version of i7. Pffft, even I thought that was crazy.

Only cause when you think about, by then they should have something at least half decent on retail shelves. Not a "Oh, this is what the previous OS I bought should have been, here it ISN'T..." LOL!

LOL!

And do you have any comment on people that are still using Windows 2000? Or perhaps Windows 98? And you think XP is going to be forgotten?

Yeah, cause we have seen so far that Vista has done a good job of getting rid of XP...

But unlike that switch, it hasn't shown tremendous gains as of now has it? I only put in the 64 bit OS comment as more of a reason XP ain't going anywhere for a long time. More of a joke really.

I guess you can throw that back with the multi threaded programs that have been talked about for years and really hasn't shown much.

Besides eye candy and the nice features which aren't needed, is there really a good enough reason to get Vista of 7, or 8 even? No...

Edit: Oh wait, if you have Vista it's a lot different.

If I had a choice between XP and 7, It'd be a tough choice depending how I wanted to go about deciding which OS I wanted, but I'd probably get XP. This is with the assumption that Windows 7 really is what Vista should have been, especially compatibility issues. If not, it's going to deserve worser flame threads then Vista.

In 10 years, XP will be almost as old as Windows 3.0 (and older than windows 3.1) is today. How many people do you see still using Windows 3.1? Windows 98 is only a bit over 3 years older than XP, so it isn't really a valid comparison. Even if you go by the date of the final service pack, that puts XP in 10 years on par with Windows 95 today. Once again, that's an OS that is almost completely dead. Nice try though.