32 bit? that's so last millenium...

[kye3k1]

Hi

I am new here but I love testing new operating system before everyone else, I tested vista when that came out and I would like to congradulate how stable this Public BETA is in comparison.

The reason for my post is simply why are they still releasing 32bit operating systems?

The only time I can think of a 32bit processor to be running Windows 7 is a laptop that shouldnt be running such an OS anyway.

Microsoft need to be pushing forward and forgetting about the past, this is what recovered apple from their disasterous times (merely and observation).

Releasing Windows 7 as 64bit only will for everyone to start coding for 64bit and finally we will see performance increases on the system.

I ask who has windows 7 32bit BETA who actually only has a 32bit processor. Its almost impossible not to have a 64bit CPU but I am waiting to be surprised. 64bit FTW!

 

[garbanzo]

i don't even know if my processor is 64bit. but i just recently upgraded from a very old machine and all my software is 32bit so i didn't even bother checking. plus i'm only running 2gb ram.

i really don't have any complaints about the speed of my system. why should i bother with 64bit? i don't plan on getting more ram soon, and i really don't want to deal with the software compatibility issues...

 

[k56flex]

the hold back of 64bit adaption is of course the relying on 32bit software compatibility. Microsoft just play it safe i think to release two version. Another thing that pushing the need of 64bit OS is the memory requirement of certain games, as well as the increase of frame buffer in GPU that certainly need more than 4GB addressing. I say, bring it on crysis alike games and we'll see more and more people going 64.

 

[smarteyeball]

i don't even know if my processor is 64bit.

It is

 

[garbanzo]

It is

thanks mate, now i know. might upgrade one day. perhaps i can start checking up on the status of the apps i rely on the most, then when windows 7 goes retail, i can get the 64-bit...

 

[smarteyeball]

No worries. I've personally had very little problems with compatability with x64 and x32 apps. It does depend on the app though. However, sometimes an app isn't 'supported' in x64, it still works fine

 

[Barman58]

I am running both 32 and 64 bit OS's mainly because of compatability issues, not with software but with drivers, certain of my periferals are without x64 drivers at the moment so if I wish to use those I have to run in 32 bit.

I have every intention of progressing to fully 64 bit as soon as I can but untill drivers are developed as default for x64 I believe that 32bit is still needed.

 

[kye3k1]

64bit runs 32bit things just fine

the hold back of 64bit adaption is of course the relying on 32bit software compatibility. Microsoft just play it safe i think to release two version. Another thing that pushing the need of 64bit OS is the memory requirement of certain games, as well as the increase of frame buffer in GPU that certainly need more than 4GB addressing. I say, bring it on crysis alike games and we'll see more and more people going 64.

Windows XP could run 16bit apps and it was 32bit, Vista 64 can run 32bit apps. So this means you dont need a 32bit edition to use 32bit apps. The default Internet explorer in Windows 7 and vista is 32bit!

If you have 64bit you can see what is 32bit by looking in task manager and the process with have a * (star) next to the name.

I have even installed 32bit drivers into my vista to make some older hardware work, and it did work... so again. Why bother with 32bit edition??

 

[k56flex]

Windows XP could run 16bit apps and it was 32bit, Vista 64 can run 32bit apps. So this means you dont need a 32bit edition to use 32bit apps. The default Internet explorer in Windows 7 and vista is 32bit!

If you have 64bit you can see what is 32bit by looking in task manager and the process with have a * (star) next to the name.

I have even installed 32bit drivers into my vista to make some older hardware work, and it did work... so again. Why bother with 32bit edition??

again, some works some didn't. I still havent seen native firefox (i knew the beta is around), IE 64 is buggy as hell, adobe just never bothered with 64 Flash plugins... etc.

 

[Dwarf]

Most, if not all, programs will actually run on a 64-bit version of Windows, even if they are 32-bit programs. The limiting factor with some of these is not the program itself, but rather the installation routine for that program. If this routine is 16-bit, then the program cannot even be installed since the 64-bit versions of Windows do not support 16-bit applications.

 

[Boomstick777]

In the next few years games will require far more ram especailly on board the graphics cards (we already have cards with 2gb on board)

Eventually if you wanna play games well you'll need an os that can use more than 3gb of ram (32bit) and that will force people to upgrade to a 64bit os...

 

[dalhectar]

For me to switch the benefit of 64 bit OS has to be worth the extra overhead involved with having both 32 bit and 64 bit code running at the same time. For me, it just wasn't.

I would rather see Windows drop the registry over drop 32 bit code support. I mean, if you want to break stuff and start fresh, that's where I'd begin.

 

[Gilbertpwns]

The problem is, most people who own pc's don't feel the need for 64 bit features. The extra ram is neglectful because average usage of pc's only need 2 gigs at most. Furthermore the general public doesn't really know the difference between 32 and 64 bit software anyways, and some people still do run on old cpu's.

 

[ittech]

the adoption of any operating system for widespread use is always based on the software availability for it. look at linux, sure it's neat, and in the right situation will provide everything you would possibly want...unless you actually have to do something, then it's usually back to windows. i do keep one box on ubuntu linux but its more for curiosity and compatability testing than work related purposes.

so we are back to the chicken or the egg ideology. microsoft has attempted to drive hardware specification with varying degrees of success. sometimes good, sometimes not...think vista. software people create software they consistantly argue will run on todays units, just not well..always waiting for the next big technological jump which doesnt always happen.

the gaming requirement argument is moot, gaming on a pc has always been and will continue to be a specialist requirement and i tell people, you want leading edge gaming, hold onto your wallet because we can do that for you, but it is going to be much more expensive than you anticipate. still, reality is, gaming on the pc is a dying breed except among our student and youth market and the consoles are eating away at that hard. these days we deliver more high end solutions to students whom require specialist music or engineering or architecture capabilities than we do for home users trying to run the latest and greatest from EA Sports.

if you don't do anything that requires 64 bit and have software to take advantage of that capability then you are in a technological holding pattern. do we advise client to grab 64 bit processor and motherboards, of course we do. having your next upgrade already in the box is a prudent business strategy but the number of clients taking full advantage of their box i could count on two hands.

 

[LuzTeTT]

the hold back of 64bit adaption is of course the relying on 32bit software compatibility. Microsoft just play it safe i think to release two version. Another thing that pushing the need of 64bit OS is the memory requirement of certain games, as well as the increase of frame buffer in GPU that certainly need more than 4GB addressing. I say, bring it on crysis alike games and we'll see more and more people going 64.

The memory requirements for a 32-bit game running on 64-bit operating systems is the same, if not less. You do not result in a frame buffer hit on your GPU, and that is also irrelevant to how much RAM is addressed. Games like Crysis are 64-bit native, and do play a huge performance gain on a 64-bit OS. Applications like Dolphin (a 64-bit GameCube/Wii emulator) only work for a 64-bit OS and are incredibly slow on 32-bit operating systems. Warcraft III is a relatively old game, and is 64-bit native. Proof:


If anything, you're resulting a performance gain while running a 32-bit application in a 64-bit environment, because the OS itself is working on a faster, more efficient 64-bit instruction set and the 32-bit application is running by itself in WOW64 without other 32-bit applications bogging down the performance.

Driver compatibility has hit an all-time high, too. It's mostly old unsupported hardware that isn't compatible with 64-bit OSes.

ADDITIONALLY:
I am not biased. I was BETA testing Windows XP Professional x64 on a standard P4 computer with 2GB of RAM and I did notice a great performance difference (how ever, driver incompatibility did tick me off back then).

 

[Mindstorm]

I ask who has windows 7 32bit BETA who actually only has a 32bit processor. Its almost impossible not to have a 64bit CPU but I am waiting to be surprised. 64bit FTW!

The new Intel Atom is a 32-bit processor and there are a lot of new netbooks and HTPC that use it

Also, why do you think a laptop shouldn't be installed with Windows 7? Microsoft has spent a great deal of time to optimize it for laptops. I've been using Windows 7 on my Lenovo S10 netbook since build 6801 - it works a great deal better than both Windows XP and all the different versions of Linux. Windows 7 is both easier on the battery and on the resources than previous operating systems...

 

[z3r010]

I thought the latest Atoms were 64bit.

 

[Mindstorm]

I thought the latest Atoms were 64bit.

No, not the netbook versions. Only the desktop Atoms can run 64-bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_(CPU)

 

[Gilbertpwns]

Yeah, you cant upgrade the hardware of a laptop very well so there are still a lot of 32 bit based laptops.

 

[WinFan]

I have a 64 bit Processor running 64 bit Windows 7