End of NVIDIA Driver Support for 32-bit Operating Systems

[matrix07012]

End of NVIDIA Driver Support for 32-bit Operating Systems
 

Quote

After Release 390, NVIDIA will no longer release drivers for 32-bit operating systems1 for any GPU architecture. Later driver release versions will not operate, nor install, on 32-bit operating systems. Driver enhancements, driver optimizations, and operating system features in driver versions after Release 390 will not be incorporated back into Release 390 or earlier versions. This impacts the following operating systems:

Microsoft Windows 7
Microsoft Windows 8/8.1
Microsoft Windows 10
Linux
FreeBSD
NVIDIA intends to support critical driver security fixes until January 2019. For more details on product security, see http://www.nvidia.com/security.

 

I don't really care, since CPUs have been 64-bit for a long times, so using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit machine is fairly stupid.

 

Sauce: http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4604/

[Jurrunio]

Yup, another reminder to tell those still on 32bit system to move on.

[yian88]

finally one step closer to getting rid of 32 bit subsytems

ive been dreaming of pure 64 bit windows/drivers programs with no support for 32 bit since windows 7 came out never used 32 bit since, i do think we could gain stability, performance and safety by getting rid of everything 32 bit in near future, gladly linux is starting to move on hopefully windows will someday too

[emosun]

12 minutes ago, yian88 said:

i do think we could gain stability, performance and safety by getting rid of everything 32 bit in near future

32 bit has nothing to do with stability , performance , or safety.

 

 

[Matu20]

Even Android ROMs are moving to 64bit. Can't even imagine desktops using 32 bit OS.

[pyrojoe34]

1 hour ago, emosun said:

32 bit has nothing to do with stability , performance , or safety.

 

 

No, but compatibility, standardization, and less headache for devs are all pluses of getting rid of 32bit software.

[suicidalfranco]

15 minutes ago, pyrojoe34 said:

No, but compatibility, standardization, and less headache for devs are all pluses of getting rid of 32bit software.

then MS pulls out Windows 10 on ARM that only supports 32-bit applications

[Vode]

2 hours ago, emosun said:

32 bit has nothing to do with stability , performance , or safety.

 

 

Not directly.

 

But no 32-bit means no 2 versions of the „same“ code and devs can focus on 64-bit instead of looking after both.

[sof006]

Finally, who still uses 32-bit these days? Even modern budget laptops use 64-bit

[Notional]

Good. Next step is to stop support of the extremely obsolete Windows 7.

[Cookybiscuit]

16 minutes ago, Notional said:

Good. Next step is to stop support of the extremely obsolete Windows 7.

Umm, that's not going to happen, sweetie.

[Tech_Dreamer]

bold move. but having an option open for every consumer is another.

[MyName13]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

Good. Next step is to stop support of the extremely obsolete Windows 7.

Extremely?

[Guest Generallee]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

Good. Next step is to stop support of the extremely obsolete Windows 7.

I dont think obsolete means what you think it means mah dude

[Notional]

27 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Extremely?

 

23 minutes ago, Generallee said:

I dont think obsolete means what you think it means mah dude

You guys know that Windows 7 is now as old as Windows XP was when Windows 7 launched right? 8 years! The last 2 generations of Intel CPU's and AMD's Ryzen (and Ryzen+ in a few months) don't officially support W7. Official Microsoft mainstream support ended almost 3 years ago. Yes, it's extremely obsolete.

[Bit_Guardian]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

 

You guys know that Windows 7 is now as old as Windows XP was when Windows 7 launched right? 8 years! The last 2 generations of Intel CPU's and AMD's Ryzen (and Ryzen+ in a few months) don't officially support W7. Official Microsoft mainstream support ended almost 3 years ago. Yes, it's extremely obsolete.

It's good enough for enterprises

 

Still using W7 at work and there are still Win 2008 servers in our fleet. Gotta squeeze those legacy apps for all they're worth! And Server 2008 is supported until 2020 lol!

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, Bit_Guardian said:

It's good enough for enterprises

So is Windows XP and in certain places: DOS.

[Bit_Guardian]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

So is Windows XP and in certain places: DOS.

You still find good old Unix in some places too.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Bit_Guardian said:

You still find good old Unix in some places too.

That's ambiguous. macOS is Unix.

[Dabombinable]

2 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

That's ambiguous. macOS is Unix.

*Unix based/Unix like. It may have some similarities but its not straight UNIX.

5 hours ago, Notional said:

Good. Next step is to stop support of the extremely obsolete Windows 7.

Obsolete as in the user still has complete control over it unlike newer versions of Windows?

[Bcat00]

31 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

 

Seriously what is up with people hating on windows 10.

Yes its gathering data constantly, but it's also giving the user a better experience than any of the older OS.

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

*Unix based/Unix like. It may have some similarities but its not straight UNIX.

No, macOS is certified Unix: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm

[Jito463]

7 hours ago, sof006 said:

Finally, who still uses 32-bit these days? Even modern budget laptops use 64-bit

While I agree to an extent (I've been 64-bit only since Windows XP Pro x64 Edition reached RC2 status), there are still use cases for 32-bit Windows.  Even if I wouldn't use it personally, I can understand those who hold onto it still.  In fact, one of the software we use for HDD diagnostics at work will only run in 32-bit Windows.  The driver it uses isn't compatible with x64.

 

And as @suicidalfranco pointed out, there are reasons even today for maintaining the 32-bit branch of Windows.

19 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

No, macOS is certified Unix: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm

I thought MacOS was based on BSD^*?

_{*and yes, I know that's a fork of UNIX}

 

........

And in answer to my own question, I just found this:

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-Mac-OS-X-considered-to-be-a-BSD-UNIX

 

Quote

Erik Fair, UNIX systems programmer (kernel hacker) since 1983

Updated Jun 20

 

Yes, but with many significant modifications.

 

The OS X kernel is based in the Carnegie Mellon University Mach OS, which was itself derived from Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) UNIX. When Steve Jobs started NeXT Inc., he recruited most of the graduate students who had worked on Mach to make the NextStep OS. Avie Tevanian became the CTO of Apple (company) after Apple bought NeXT, and Steve reascended to the CEO throne.

 

The Mac OS X "userland" (the initial set of user level programs) came from NetBSD because that software already ran on PowerPC. I know this because a program that I committed to the NetBSD source tree (and which did not exist at that time in any other BSD) ended up in Mac OS X, to my great amusement.

 

[NoRomanBatmansAllowed]

8 hours ago, Vode said:

But no 32-bit means no 2 versions of the „same“ code and devs can focus on 64-bit instead of looking after both.

Or, it means that companies will only have to hire 1/2 as many devs.

[Ithanul]

8 hours ago, sof006 said:

Finally, who still uses 32-bit these days? Even modern budget laptops use 64-bit

There still some setups that use 32-bit for a few reasons:  software and money.

 

I deal with a few 32-bit setups on occasions.  Heck, I had to deal with an old Windows 3.1 setup on a very particular hardware setup.  There is just certain software that still runs on older hardware that is used in certain specific work tasks.  Reason for the old setups, as long as they work, money does not need to be spent for new hardware and software.

 

4 hours ago, Bit_Guardian said:

You still find good old Unix in some places too.

Yep, I seen some server setups that still run on that and use COBOL to boot.

 

30 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I thought MacOS was based on BSD^*?

_{*and yes, I know that's a fork of UNIX}

By my understanding, yes, it is base on BSD UNIX.  There other hardware setups too that use variations of the BSD UNIX.  I deal with a netApp SANs setup that runs on a variation of BSD.