Windows 10 to Still Offer a 32-bit Option

[Django]

You're completely wrong on the cpus.last atoms to be 32bit were in 09 and are nowhere to be seen now. Core series were 64bit.

Where I live I can also buy old as fuck shit, doesn't mean I expect it to work with new stuff

And while you mention the 32 bit programs. A VAST majority of programs you have running right now would be fine if they were written for 16bit. Does not mean there is no benefit to them being 64bit. First is better more robust security/encryption. Second is faster code execution (x87 is beyond slow these days) and better memory management.

Please stop selling me bullshit because I know about this much more in depth than most people here. And you know why ms is doing 32bit? Because otherwise the uneducated public that buys it will rage because they think they killed off the "budget" version.

 

Here, let me filter some Intel Ark data for Atom to show just 32-bit. Z650 was launched 2nd quarter of 2011.

http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced?s=t&FamilyText=Intel%C2%AE%20Atom%E2%84%A2%20Processor&InstructionSet=32-bit

 

 

 

And for the Intel Core, also filtered for 32-bit

http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced?s=t&FamilyText=Legacy%20Intel%C2%AE%20Core%E2%84%A2%20Processor&InstructionSet=32-bit

 

 

People already running W8.1 with old 32-bit CPU's just fine and your trying to tell us 32-bit W10 will not work them because of what exactly?

 

I could also tell you that 64-bit W10 will not work with all 64-bit CPU's too but would work with the 32-bit version but you'll probably just say that is BS too.

 

Do I know why MS is doing 32-bit, well TBH I really don't care, if I need a 32-bit version then great but I do use 64-bit with the hardware I have. I just think people over react to the whole thing. As already stated if performance requires 64-bit then that's what going to be offered. If it doesn't then 32-bit applications work just fine. While the GPR's are 32-bit and fewer of them they still have access to the bigger registers such as MMX, SSE, AVX and other functions such as AES so providing the memory footprint sits under 4GB, or 2GB if contiguous memory is required, then what's the big deal with having to have only 64-bit apps.

[shiftberry]

I hope my Pentium 4 handles that.

[infernusknight]

Microsoft can't (and shouldn't) drop 32-bit for Windows 10. There's still devices being made that will only run 32-bit Windows.

 

What Microsoft can, should, and needs to do is to force all new Intel Windows tablet manufacturers to stop shipping devices with a crippled BIOS that won't load 64-bit OSes, at least 64GB of storage (Windows 8.1 32-bit already eats around 12GB, with tons of duplicate DLLs around storage is going to become an issue if you have less than 64 gigs of it) and 2GB of RAM at the LEAST (preferably 4GB.) This will bite them in the ass because it will make it impossible to put out a tablet running full Windows that can compete with the pricing of lower end Android tablets, but oh well I guess. Then by Windows 12 they should drop 32-bit.

 

By the time Windows 12 releases if companies insist on 32-bit they can pay Microsoft special for it but it should not to be available to consumers or small to medium businesses.

[Gentleman_Sandwich]

I dunno if it came up earlier, I'm in a hurry at the moment. Aside from outdated software in the industry, there's also the whole matter of embedded systems to think about as well. I would need to do some research to find out what architecture embedded systems use most. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot were based on 32 bit processing. Thus a need for 32 bit operating systems!

[TheProfosist]

I dunno if it came up earlier, I'm in a hurry at the moment. Aside from outdated software in the industry, there's also the whole matter of embedded systems to think about as well. I would need to do some research to find out what architecture embedded systems use most. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot were based on 32 bit processing. Thus a need for 32 bit operating systems!

Most are based on 32bit nowdays but that wouldnt effect the consumer version of Windows 10.

[Morality Core]

You could not be more wrong.

1) There are huge reasons (and plenty) for moving from 32bit to 64bit. Performance and hardware compatibility (more addresses for memory and other hardware) are both very important and will improve with 64bit.

2) When it comes to ARM, the move to 64bit is not just an extension for the 32bit instruction set. We are also moving from ARMv7 to ARMv8 which is a completely redesigned instruction set with pretty big performance improvements. About ~15% according to Anandtech (varies from scenario to scenario).

3) You seem a bit confused over what a kernel is and what an instruction set is. The move to 64bit is not an "add-on" to the kernel. The move from x86 to x86_64 could be seen as an "add-on" for x86, but the kernel and the instruction set are two completely different things.

4) You don't have to rewrite everything. A lot of stuff needs to be rewritten but like a lot of other people have said in the thread already, 32bit code can run on a 64bit OS.

5) Android has already moved to 64bit. The Nexus 9 even ships with the 64bit version. The question isn't "when will Google move to 64bit", the question is "who will drop 32bit completely first".

 

If there was any other tech company behind Windows I would have guessed that Windows would move to 64bit only first. Hell I am surprised that Windows is still available in 32bit flavor. We are only just now getting hardware that supports 64bit for Android so there will probably be years before the 32bit version is dropped completely. Apple will most certainly drop it first. I don't know when the iPhone 5 will stop being supported (like 1-2 years left?) but when that happens all new versions of iOS will be 64bit only. After that we will have to see if Microsoft or Google drops 32bit first. Microsoft has a ~10 years head start over Google but I am not so sure that will be enough, knowing how slow Microsoft is with these things.

Alright sorry for my misinformation, and thanks that you corrected me

1) You're right, and I never (deliberately) denied what you stated here.

2) I was basing my explanation solely on the facts I know from x86 and I didn't know that moving to 64bit also would come along with a new architecture. Mobile devices aren't my best field of knowledge.

3) I do know the difference. I may have overcomplicated it in my previous post, but I generally meant that with a new instruction set, the kernel would need to be different as well to accomodate for the changes in the instructions.

4) I mostly meant the low-level libraries that make the system work would need to be rewritten, not the entire system. In fact, I sid myself that (again, since it's only an extension to it) 64bit can run 32bit without complications.

[LAwLz]

1) You're right, and I never (deliberately) denied what you stated here.

Oh sorry I must have missed that part.

 

2) I was basing my explanation solely on the facts I know from x86 and I didn't know that moving to 64bit also would come along with a new architecture. Mobile devices aren't my best field of knowledge.

Yeah I see this mistake being made all the time. It's easy to think that it's just an extension on ARM but this is not the case.

 

3) I do know the difference. I may have overcomplicated it in my previous post, but I generally meant that with a new instruction set, the kernel would need to be different as well to accomodate for the changes in the instructions.

Ah I see. Yes that is correct. When I read your later posts it became clear that you knew what you were talking about. Not sure if it was a bit poorly worded or if I didn't read carefully enough.

[euniqe]

lol everyone instantly thinking of PC's. for commercial and business use, this is a must-have.

[TheProfosist]

lol everyone instantly thinking of PC's. for commercial and business use, this is a must-have.

Which are completely separate editions of windows.

[p5ych00n5]

Not if you wanna play GTAV........

 

Minimum specifications:

• OS: Windows 8.1 64 Bit, Windows 8 64 Bit, Windows 7 64 Bit Service Pack 1, Windows Vista 64 Bit Service Pack 2* (*NVIDIA video card recommended if running Vista OS)
• Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
• Memory: 4GB
• Video Card: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
• Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible
• HDD Space: 65GB
• DVD Drive

Recommended specifications:

• OS: Windows 8.1 64 Bit, Windows 8 64 Bit, Windows 7 64 Bit Service Pack 1
• Processor: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2GHZ (4 CPUs) / AMD X8 FX-8350 @ 4GHZ (8 CPUs)
• Memory: 8GB
• Video Card: NVIDIA GTX 660 2GB / AMD HD7870 2GB
• Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible
• HDD Space: 65GB
• DVD Drive

No 32 Bit OS support, although MOST gamers would have a 64 Bit OS anyways, cheap tablets and lightweight netbooks would be likely to be running 32 Bit OS

[Billman87]

A few years back I was able to resurrect a 15 year mobile old asphalt factory running 16 bit software via a com port using dosbox on a 64 bit CPU.

If its impossible to port your software and devices to a Virtual Machine then its in the companies best interest to phase out such systems.

 

However these days practically everything can be run in a virtual server on newer hardware.

And in my role as a support tech having mixed OSes is frustrating especially since the user often has no idea what an OS is let alone it variety.

 

I am looking forward to a uniform eco system from Microsoft.

[Morality Core]

Ah I see. Yes that is correct. When I read your later posts it became clear that you knew what you were talking about. Not sure if it was a bit poorly worded or if I didn't read carefully enough.

Probably just an overcomplication on my side, not your fault

 

Thanks again for the correction, I'm always eager to learn new things^^

 

Have a nice day

[Neddamka]

I think 32bit UNIX time is still good for another 20 odd years but its something you can code around.

 

Wikipedia is such a wonderful tool.

 

The UNIX timestamp runs out at 03:14:07 UTC on January 19th, 2038, so come Monday 32-bit users will have thirteen years to upgrade. Plenty of time.

 

Side Note: AMD did not introduce the first 64-bit CPU, as many people here seem to think. We've had 64-bit CPUs since the 70's (Cray-1). 64-bit microprocessors have existed since the early 90's. Consoles beat PC to 64-bit with the N64. Hell, there were PDA's in 2001 that were 64-bit. It wasn't until September 2003 that AMD released a 64-bit processor aimed at mainstream PC's (Athlon 64).

Some folks argue that IBM and Apple beat AMD by three months with the 64-bit PowerPC 970. However, at the time of launch the PowerPC 970 was being used in the Power Mac G5 as a workstation chip, competing in the same market as AMD's then two-month-old 64-bit Opteron chip. The iMacs released in 2004 were using PowerPC 970FX chips, not the original 970's.

[RH00D]

Wikipedia is such a wonderful tool.

 

The UNIX timestamp runs out at 03:14:07 UTC on January 19th, 2038, so come Monday 32-bit users will have thirteen years to upgrade. Plenty of time.

 

Side Note: AMD did not introduce the first 64-bit CPU, as many people here seem to think. We've had 64-bit CPUs since the 70's (Cray-1). 64-bit microprocessors have existed since the early 90's. Consoles beat PC to 64-bit with the N64. Hell, there were PDA's in 2001 that were 64-bit. It wasn't until September 2003 that AMD released a 64-bit processor aimed at mainstream PC's (Athlon 64).

Some folks argue that IBM and Apple beat AMD by three months with the 64-bit PowerPC 970. However, at the time of launch the PowerPC 970 was being used in the Power Mac G5 as a workstation chip, competing in the same market as AMD's then two-month-old 64-bit Opteron chip. The iMacs released in 2004 were using PowerPC 970FX chips, not the original 970's.

 

You are correct, but I'd put an asterisk on that because it depends on how you look at it. AMD did create the 64-bit extension to x86 and was the first to release a 64-bit x86-based CPU. But as seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing#64-bit_processor_timeline there was definitely a lot of work happening in the realm of 64-bit well before AMD got to it.

[Grrizz]

Wikipedia is such a wonderful tool.

 

The UNIX timestamp runs out at 03:14:07 UTC on January 19th, 2038, so come Monday 32-bit users will have thirteen years to upgrade. Plenty of time.

 

Side Note: AMD did not introduce the first 64-bit CPU, as many people here seem to think. We've had 64-bit CPUs since the 70's (Cray-1). 64-bit microprocessors have existed since the early 90's. Consoles beat PC to 64-bit with the N64. Hell, there were PDA's in 2001 that were 64-bit. It wasn't until September 2003 that AMD released a 64-bit processor aimed at mainstream PC's (Athlon 64).

Some folks argue that IBM and Apple beat AMD by three months with the 64-bit PowerPC 970. However, at the time of launch the PowerPC 970 was being used in the Power Mac G5 as a workstation chip, competing in the same market as AMD's then two-month-old 64-bit Opteron chip. The iMacs released in 2004 were using PowerPC 970FX chips, not the original 970's.

*23 years but again it comes down to how its coded while technically that would be the end point its pretty safe to assume that if your computer overflows to 1901 its not 1901 and actually still 2038 so you could say any negative twos-complement binary number is inverted time in seconds added to 19/1/38 giving you a working range of approximately 1970-2106 a.k.a use unsigned 32bit or you could define it as a 64bit number as there's no reason a 32bit computer cant use 64bit numbers it just take twice the operations to compute.

[Neddamka]

*23 years but again it comes down to how its coded while technically that would be the end point its pretty safe to assume that if your computer overflows to 1901 its not 1901 and actually still 2038 so you could say any negative twos-complement binary number is inverted time in seconds added to 19/1/38 giving you a working range of approximately 1970-2106 a.k.a use unsigned 32bit or you could define it as a 64bit number as there's no reason a 32bit computer cant use 64bit numbers it just take twice the operations to compute.

 

*smacks head* Yes, right, 23. Bad math and poor wording. You're right, of course, and I didn't mean to sound so definite about 2038.