Microsoft Explains Why Windows 10 32-Bit Is Still Needed

[exitrade]

“Many customers are still using it,” the company says

A few days ago, Gabriel Aul, head of the Windows Insider Program, confirmed in a short tweet that Windows 10 would also launch with a 32-bit SKU, thus putting an end to some weird rumors pointing out that Microsoft wants to step away from this architecture type with the new OS version.

In new tweets posted today, Aul also talks more about the need to develop Windows 10 for 32-bit configurations, explaining that, despite what many people think, this particular CPU architecture is still being used by many Windows customers out there.

The Microsoftie previously said that there were “100s of millions of existing 32bit PCs that are upgradeable,” suggesting that, without a 32-bit version of Windows 10, all these computers would have to stick to an older Windows version or move to a completely different platform, most likely Linux.

Nearly 71 million 32-bit Windows PCs spotted last month

As far as statistics are concerned, Aul also reveals that, in December 2014, a total of 70.6 million computers with a 32-bit architecture connected to Windows Update to get the latest patches released by Microsoft.

Obviously, the number of such PCs is even bigger because not all are getting patches via Windows Update, while others delay the patching process or do not have an Internet connection, so they cannot be counted in.

At the same time, Aul also explains that working on a 32-bit version of Windows 10 “doesn’t affect development time,” but instead “costs more in build servers to produce.”

New PCs almost entirely on 64-bit

While in Windows 10’s case it’s pretty clear that a 32-bit version would be part of the rollout, things could change for the next Windows version, as customers are quickly migrating to 64-bit setups for new computers.

Gabriel Aul claims that, in the case of new computers with a BIOS age less than 1 year old, the percentage is impressively in the favor of 64-bit architectures. No less than 92.8 percent of the new PCs sold worldwide and running Windows are powered by a 64-bit of the company’s operating system, he says.

Windows 10, in both 32- and 64-bit versions, should arrive in late summer or early fall 2015, while new information on the project is expected to be shared this month, during a consumer event in Redmond.

Source

[steven36]

Its not needed for functionally really , Ive not used x86 since 2011. Now back when Vista came out x86 preferably with XP on it was needed because nothing much was compatible with it. but those days are long gone . Only Microsoft needs x86 to sell windows 10.. I sure dont need it. :lol: Its a marketing ploy is all and it dont mean many people on windows 7 will upgrade any time soon . No one was in a hurry to upgrade from XP I used XP 10 years and still many others waited tell latter for updates to kick the bucket And still there's many who refuse to stop using XP . ;)

[CODYQX4]

Still using it out of need, or because they don't know any better?

Most of the dinosaur sub-par junk that people run, even at it's worst, 95% of it is x64 capable.

Almost all x86 apps run fine on x64, unless you have unsigned x86 only drivers.

[MidnightDistortions]

Still using it out of need, or because they don't know any better?

Most of the dinosaur sub-par junk that people run, even at it's worst, 95% of it is x64 capable.

Almost all x86 apps run fine on x64, unless you have unsigned x86 only drivers.

I am currently using a PC that was originally 32 bit but upgraded the processor so it's x64. Still think MS should have just went with 64 bit but i guess the threats of moving to Linux or continuing to use an outdated OS is too much for MS. Or that people would actually upgrade their PCs's to 64bit.

[banned]

I've owned 64-bit capable processors for probably a decade now, and I still run 32-bit Windows XP. If I do install Windows 10, it won't replace XP, and I'll dual-boot with the 64-bit version.

[SPECTRUM]

I still use 32 bits too.

[go0gle]

32 bits works perfect 4 me 2. dont see any need 4 it either :D unless u play games.

[Misaki2010]

I used the 32-bit version too, until last week when I upgraded to a 64-bit version. Keeping the 32-bit version still a choice is a nice move from Microsoft. No one would install a 64-bit version of Windows on a PC with 2 GB ram or less.

I personally had 4GB RAM before, and I still used the 32-bit even through the OS could only use 3GB of the total of 4GB. But since I got 2 more GB, I couldn't stay on the 32-bit architecture anymore :(

32-bit version of Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 felt more stable than the 64-bit one. I got like 2 or 3 BSOD's last year on a 32-bit OS and using the 64-bit one I already got 1 until now... and it's been only 1 week :)

[steven36]

The problem with x86 is that x64 programs will never run on x86 but almost all x86 programs run on x64 . There starting to make some programs tat dont run on x86 at all.

The differences between 32-bit vs. 64-bit operating systems explained

So you just bought a fancy new computer, and it’s got a big sticker on it that says “64-bit!”. Have you found yourself wondering why this particular computing buzzword is so prominently featured on your new hardware, and what exactly it means? Modern computing has been shifting towards 64-bit for a few years now, and it has saturated the market to a point where even entry-level computers are equipped with these new, more powerful processors. Even with the manufacturers pushing the new CPUs, your computer may not be able to take full advantage of the technology, and getting to that point may cost you more money in software than it’s worth.

What are bits?

The number of bits in a processor refers to the size of the data types that it handles and the size of its registry. A 64-bit processor is capable of storing 2⁶⁴ computational values, including memory addresses, which means it’s able to access over four billion times as much physical memory than a 32-bit processor! The key difference: 32-bit processors are perfectly capable of handling a limited amount of RAM, and 64-bit processors are capable of utilizing much more. Of course, in order to achieve this, your operating system also needs to be designed to take advantage of the greater access to memory. This Microsoft page runs down memory limitations for multiple versions of Windows.

How many bits?

As a general rule, if you have under 4 GB of RAM in your computer, you don’t need a 64-bit CPU, but if you have 4 GB or more, you do. While many users may find that a 32-bit processor provides them with enough performance and memory access, applications that tend to use large amounts of memory may show vast improvements with the upgraded processor. Image and video editing software, 3D rendering utilities, and video games will make better use of a 64-bit architecture and operating system, especially if the machine has 8 or even 16 GB of RAM that can be divided among the applications that need it.

Through hardware emulation, it’s possible to run 32-bit software and operating systems on a machine with a 64-bit processor. The opposite isn’t true however, in that 32-bit processors cannot run software designed with 64-bit architecture in mind. This means if you want to take full advantage of your new processor you also need a new operating system, otherwise you won’t experience any marked benefits over the 32-bit version of your hardware.

Operating System Differences

With an increase in the availability of 64-bit processors and larger capacities of RAM, Microsoft and Apple both have begun to develop and release upgraded versions of their operating systems that are designed to take full advantage of the new technology. In the case of Microsoft Windows, the basic versions of the operating systems put software limitations on the amount of RAM that can be used by applications, but even in the ultimate and professional version of the operating system, 4 GB is the maximum usable memory the 32-bit version can handle. While a 64-bit operating system can increase the capabilities of a processor drastically, the real jump in power comes from software designed with this architecture in mind.

Software and Drivers

Applications with high performance demands already take advantage of the increase in available memory, with companies releasing 64-bit versions of their programs. This is especially useful on programs that can store a lot of information for immediate access, like image editing and software that opens multiple large files at the same time.

Video games are also uniquely equipped to take advantage of 64-bit processing and the increased memory that comes with it. Being able to handle more computations at once means more spaceships on screen without lagging and smoother performance from your graphics card, which doesn’t have to share memory with other processes anymore.

Most software is backwards compatible, allowing you to run applications that are 32-bit in a 64-bit environment without any extra work or issues. Virus protection software and drivers tend to be the exception to this rule, with hardware mostly requiring the proper version be installed in order to function correctly.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/32-bit-64-bit-operating-systems/

Its not just games that work better on x64 its most every thing does encoding videos is much faster etc almost everything works better on x64 . But if you have under 4 gb of ram these things would be slower regardless if on x86 or x64 :P

[LeeSmithG]

64 bit has been around for a long time now, we need 128 bit!

32 bit should be put on the shelf now as 99.99999% of coders write for 64 bit.

[CODYQX4]

I've owned 64-bit capable processors for probably a decade now, and I still run 32-bit Windows XP. If I do install Windows 10, it won't replace XP, and I'll dual-boot with the 64-bit version.

I don't blame anyone for using x86 XP. Driver support was crap for x64.

But I see no reason to use x86 over x64 on 7+ (hell I used to run x64 Vista on 2GB RAM).

[CODYQX4]

64 bit has been around for a long time now, we need 128 bit!

32 bit should be put on the shelf now as 99.99999% of coders write for 64 bit.

Honestly I think most coders write for x86 knowing WOW64 is almost perfect and it will 99% of the time not need fiddled with.

If you aren't dealing with drivers or some of the crazy crap I had to do in MTK to bypass the LocalHost block, x86 stuff works fine under x86.

OS X has been x64 OS only for awhile. It still runs x86 apps without a problem (hell Chrome only recently went x64 there).

[steven36]

I've owned 64-bit capable processors for probably a decade now, and I still run 32-bit Windows XP. If I do install Windows 10, it won't replace XP, and I'll dual-boot with the 64-bit version.

I don't blame anyone for using x86 XP. Driver support was crap for x64.

But I see no reason to use x86 over x64 on 7+ (hell I used to run x64 Vista on 2GB RAM).

I ran windows 7 x64 for a while with 2GB of Ram it could not even render videos very well above 480p because of the crappy small processer . So I think if you dont have the ram or processer your not going get better performance regardless . I guess if all you want to do is browse the internet and play popcap games and watch xvid 2gb is enough . :lol:

[banned]

dont see any need 4 [64-bit] either; unless u play games.

Exactly. Gaming is currently the main reason I am dual booting with 64-bit Windows 8.1 (fully patched and w/classic start menu); Some games now require more than 4GB physical memory, as well as newer versions of DirectX.

I don't blame anyone for using x86 XP. Driver support was crap for x64.

Thanks buddy. Indeed, 64-bit driver support for my TV card was always crap (which I used almost every day). I'm trying to move on, and obtained a new 40-inch 1080p television to replace my Leadtek TV card that is failing at the moment (I assume the old electrolytic capacitors are unable to hold a sufficient charge).

There starting to make some programs tat dont run on x86 at all.

Yeah, and in my case it applies to DirectX 11+ games only.

64 bit has been around for a long time now, we need 128 bit!

Hehehe!

[CODYQX4]

I've owned 64-bit capable processors for probably a decade now, and I still run 32-bit Windows XP. If I do install Windows 10, it won't replace XP, and I'll dual-boot with the 64-bit version.

I don't blame anyone for using x86 XP. Driver support was crap for x64.

But I see no reason to use x86 over x64 on 7+ (hell I used to run x64 Vista on 2GB RAM).

I ran windows 7 x64 for a while with 2GB of Ram it could not even render videos very well above 480p because of the crappy small processer . So I think if you dont have the ram or processer your not going get better performance regardless . I guess if all you want to do is browse the internet and play popcap games and watch xvid 2gb is enough . :lol:

Well if you have weak PC the OS is going to run like crap. That Vista laptop ran equally crappy on either architecture.

But if you have x64 you can run more apps, though I haven't seen very many x64 only Windows apps.

[steven36]

I've owned 64-bit capable processors for probably a decade now, and I still run 32-bit Windows XP. If I do install Windows 10, it won't replace XP, and I'll dual-boot with the 64-bit version.

I don't blame anyone for using x86 XP. Driver support was crap for x64.

But I see no reason to use x86 over x64 on 7+ (hell I used to run x64 Vista on 2GB RAM).

I ran windows 7 x64 for a while with 2GB of Ram it could not even render videos very well above 480p because of the crappy small processer . So I think if you dont have the ram or processer your not going get better performance regardless . I guess if all you want to do is browse the internet and play popcap games and watch xvid 2gb is enough . :lol:

Well if you have weak PC the OS is going to run like crap. That Vista laptop ran equally crappy on either architecture.

But if you have x64 you can run more apps, though I haven't seen very many x64 only Windows apps.

Vmware the latest version only x64 . Also Sony Vegas 13 only x64 now . I remember when Vista came out it was even hard to get a cracker to do cracks for it on x64 and a lot of programs were not even compatible . That's why I waited tell windows 7 to switch from XP . Good to see the tables turning anyways .

[CODYQX4]

I've owned 64-bit capable processors for probably a decade now, and I still run 32-bit Windows XP. If I do install Windows 10, it won't replace XP, and I'll dual-boot with the 64-bit version.

I don't blame anyone for using x86 XP. Driver support was crap for x64.

But I see no reason to use x86 over x64 on 7+ (hell I used to run x64 Vista on 2GB RAM).

I ran windows 7 x64 for a while with 2GB of Ram it could not even render videos very well above 480p because of the crappy small processer . So I think if you dont have the ram or processer your not going get better performance regardless . I guess if all you want to do is browse the internet and play popcap games and watch xvid 2gb is enough . :lol:

Well if you have weak PC the OS is going to run like crap. That Vista laptop ran equally crappy on either architecture.

But if you have x64 you can run more apps, though I haven't seen very many x64 only Windows apps.

Vmware the latest version only x64 . Also Sony Vegas 13 only x64 now . I remember Vista came out it was even hard to get a cracker to do cracks for it on x64 and a lot of programs were not even compatible . That's why I waited tell windows 7 to switch from XP . Good to see the tables turning anyways .

Biggest change is 7 brought 4GB+ laptops and x64 installed by default, otherwise most people just bought junk from Best Buy with 2GB of RAM and Vista Home x86.

[steven36]

Biggest change is 7 brought 4GB+ laptops and x64 installed by default, otherwise most people just bought junk from Best Buy with 2GB of RAM and Vista Home x86.

Yes right before Windows 7 came out I bought and XP from a site that had computers still with XP new . I upgraded it to windows 7 x64 it was not very hot because it had and small processor. But not for a whole lot more money than I paid for it . I bought a Tower with Windows 8 x64 It works great for what I do on the net . Back in the old days you was looking at over $1000 for P4 then you had to buy extra memory and a DVD burner to have a top of line pc when XP came out lol.

[mjall]

32bit does not benefit from 4gb of ram so if you need more than 2gb, you will have to run on 64bit; the public are not educated on the difference of using both and that is why most people run 32bit because majority of non-tech people dont' understand what it means to use a 32bit or 64bit of windows

[click-click]

I don't use 64-bit because I don't like having a mish-mash of 64 and 32-bit apps on the system. Apps are definitely not all 64-bit. I.e. Firefox, Thunderbird, etc. I prefer having a pure environment. Once all the apps I use become available in 64-bit versions, I will consider moving.

[mjall]

I don't use 64-bit because I don't like having a mish-mash of 64 and 32-bit apps on the system. Apps are definitely not all 64-bit. I.e. Firefox, Thunderbird, etc. I prefer having a pure environment. Once all the apps I use become available in 64-bit versions, I will consider moving.

you can run most 32-bit software on a 64 bit OS and 90% of all software to my knowledge are all having a 64 bit version nowdays; this has progressed since the Vista days a mile

[shasi]

I like to use 64 bit than 32

[mlauzon]

The issue is until we get rid of 32-bit, x64 won't fully take off. 32-bit is legacy now as far as I'm concerned, and it's MS that's holding x64 computing from the mainstream. 16-bit Windows was around for about 10 years, if I'm adding that correctly, 32-bit Windows has been around for 20 years, it's time to let it die so true 64-bit Windows can take over, and force -- more or less -- companies and independent application developers to start coding for it.

[dcs18]

The issue is until we get rid of 32-bit, x64 won't fully take off.

Oh, didn't know that the x64-bit Windows has not yet taken off fully, in Canada.

[mlauzon]

While we may have Windows x64, the legacy 32-bit -- Program Files (x86) -- apps need to go so development of x64 apps becomes completely mainstream. This isn't the case because MS is claiming we still need 32-bit.