Don
Win8 x86 or x64?
- Thread starter Mark M
- Start date
Soldato
The reason my microsoft have even bothered with 32Bit at all in the last few years has utterly stunned me.
Stuff 32Bit, its no good to anyone but the cheapest scrooges out there who wont upgrade to a 64Bit PC and if they wont upgrade their PC to something thats been around, and is the standard, for years now, then why support them?
Stuff 32Bit, its no good to anyone but the cheapest scrooges out there who wont upgrade to a 64Bit PC and if they wont upgrade their PC to something thats been around, and is the standard, for years now, then why support them?
Soldato
I went 64Bit when XP64 first came out.
I loved it and the only issue I had was my Printer ( Epson C42 ) and Modem ( BTVoyager USB Job ) but simply upgrading sorted them out... Never bothered with 32 Bit since.
So yeah, XP64 was great and very underrated by those who more often than not, didnt actually use it. For me, it was flawess and the last BSOD I ever saw... Until Vista.
I loved it and the only issue I had was my Printer ( Epson C42 ) and Modem ( BTVoyager USB Job ) but simply upgrading sorted them out... Never bothered with 32 Bit since.
So yeah, XP64 was great and very underrated by those who more often than not, didnt actually use it. For me, it was flawess and the last BSOD I ever saw... Until Vista.
Enterprise. It's the sole reason.
Probably millions if pcs on very old hardware, that would cost a fortune for companies to replace. Should have phased it out for the home version and left it as an option in the pro version and enterprise licenses.
Don
I see why MS kept it in initially for Windows Vista, maybe even Windows 7, but the legacy PCs that don't support 64 bit probably wouldn't run 8 all that well anyway. I think starting with Windows 8, MS should have announced 64 bit only, for PCs anyway.
Especially as for enterprise, Windows 7 is more common than Windows 8 anyway...
Soldato
There are still 32bit CPUs still around. Plus upgrade scenarios. There is still a place for 32 bit Windows, it's really not as straightforward as "ditch the old stuff".
Associate
from 8 onwards 64 bit only i agree. like server 2012 is 64bit only
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 4,819
32bit is pointless for PC's with more RAM than 4GB, because it won't handle any more than that.
I guess it solely depends on what the PC will be used for, if it only need little RAM, and not a powerhouse overall, then 32 bit would be the route to go.
I guess it solely depends on what the PC will be used for, if it only need little RAM, and not a powerhouse overall, then 32 bit would be the route to go.
Don
But then there's usually other compatibility issues with machines that are that old anyway. For example there are various old graphics chipsets that are no longer supported by Windows 7 and up. The are other incompatibilities such as my main laptop, which then revs up the CPU to full power in Windows 8, pushing the fans on high, good for speed, but a waste of power and not good for the system's ventilation.
Nothing works with everything so unless MS also carry on supporting legacy devices better with their drivers, there's no point whatsoever in sticking to 32 bit.
Also, what 32 bit CPUs are still sold? Even low-end Intels are 64 bit, including Atoms.
Last edited:
Soldato
Pretty much this from a couple of years of heavy overclocking on x64 XP. Being based on x64 Server 2003 it was an incredibly stable OS.
Yeah drivers could be difficult to come across, but quite often x64 Server 2003 drivers could be had.
Soldato
I'm not advocating people stick with x86 Windows, I'm saying it's premature to call for Microsoft to ditch it. There is a huge difference.
For your average user yes, x64 all the way.
They are now, they weren't a few years ago. Plenty of x86 netbooks out there.
Soldato
Still, its an arguement thats got valid points on both sides.
For me, as you say... They weren't a few years ago, but there are now.
Well, in that case, people with systems that are a few years old, are often not capable of running newer O/S to its full potential, and therefore, since the vast majority of users will be using a new PC with no doubt a 64Bit CPU, again, I fail to see why there is a 32Bit option at all.
As for the enterprise option, this too, I am struggling to find a realistic answer to the question at all... I mean... When the hell does the option of buying new Operating systems come into it, unless it salong with all new systems? Name me onecompany that has done this, I certainly cannot think of any?
So for me, the enterprise answer is one that I dont accept.
Soldato
One of the biggest strengths of Windows is compatibility and long-term support. Why would they choose to ditch x86 before its time? It's not like it's holding anybody back who wants x64.
Because MS want as many people to upgrade as possible and excluding the millions of people who bought netbooks just a couple of years before (even though most of them are probably in the bottom of a drawer somewhere now) would be a poor move.
If it wasn't for the popularity of netbooks/Atom-based systems I imagine it'd be a far easier decision for MS to drop x86 on a consumer level (although I doubt they actually would have), but as it stands it's quite a large number of systems to ignore.
This.
I suppose it largely depends on how old 'oldish' is. I'd consider my machine to be pretty old and it still has a 64 bit processor, but it's still something that the OP should check before committing to x64.
Associate
one of the main things for x32 is if your runing a legacy application, that does no work in windows 7 or 8 only on 32 bit os can you install it in the ot virtual pc and then have the application work from your normaly start menu. e.g application is installed on the xp vm but appears on the windows 7 / 8 start menut and opens like a normaly application, where as in 64 bit this is not possiable and you must open it in the vm.
Soldato
x64