Microsoft Explains Why Windows 10 32-Bit Is Still Needed

[dcs18]

After reading all the responses to the article, it is evident that only a couple of members bothered to read it (or else, the others did read - but, failed to comprehend what has been stated.)

Not really sure why Users of X64-bit hardware got so frazzled - the article is not related to this architecture in any way. The x64-bit iteration is not affected in any way regardless of whether Microsoft decides to continue or kill the x32-bit.

I am myself a firm believer in the x64-bit and look forward eagerly to the x128-bit which will be introduced - regardless of the plight of x32-bit. Remember the x32-bit is an extra bit of bonus - an option, which is not being foisted upon the end User.

The last point having been said - it would make me inexplicably sad when x32-bit is finally denied support - Users of XP (and Vista) might connect with what I just typed (unfortunately, that plug is certainly going to be pulled - for now, enjoy the good news in the article but don't keep trusting Microsoft and if feasible upgrade your hardware.)

[CODYQX4]

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.

I wouldn't do that, they'd break 99.9% of apps and that's the last thing they need after "2" failed OS in a row.

Someday, they should cross that bridge, but x86 OS should die before x86 emulator. People don't even know the PCs they replaced their stuff with for the last several years are commonly on x64 (has 4GB RAM, has x64 OS), I don't even see 2GB RAM and single core crap anymore, even the junkies of junk probably has enough RAM, and a garbage but dual core CPU. People don't know or care because of the emulator runs their apps, and the apps that wouldn't work (custom stuff with unsigned drivers) only concern the kind of companies who would run custom stuff from the 80's (there is one I know of running a custom Os, custom hardware, who must pay the devs a fortune, yet claim it would "cost too much" to just have the software redone for a normal OS/Architecture).

Hell, Apple is way less forgiving on x64 and while they have more x64 apps it seems, it will happily run x86 ones. Even Chrome until a few months was x86.

My point is that x86 only OS isn't needed as 99.999999999% of people with PCs who wouldn't be insane to believe they could possibly run 10 (if your PC is old enough to drive, it might not be x64 capable, but most people don't run 10+ year stuff and even know of any OS upgrades), and the reason that MS should be able to kill it is because their emulator works so well. By removing the emulator you then put people in a position where they NEED x86 OS to run their app, because you removed the thing that would let them move to x64.

To kill the emulator there needs to be a carrot and stick approach. Make it strongly preferable to code for x64, while in stages making it harder to do x86 only, until it is so much trouble that nobody codes for it anymore (hell, 16 Bit is supported on x86 OS, but nobody codes for it, and no modern Windows dev tools to my knowledge provide it, and today they could get rid of it on 10 and not a single tear would be shed).