Dear Microsoft: A 64-Bit OS Is Better Than a 32-Bit OS

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Backblaze has a new post up that basically asks: why does Microsoft still offer a 32-bit OS? The author points out that the 64-bit version of Windows runs all 32-bit programs anyway, and reiterates the benefits of the higher bit: support for more RAM, increased performance for programs written to take advantage of a 64-bit OS, and enhanced security. Commenters point out that the 32-bit version is still justified, however, as you would not have support for legacy 16-bit applications and components with the 64-bit edition.

Microsoft offers a 64-bit OS in Windows 10 that runs all 64-bit and all 32-bit programs. This is a valid choice of an Operating System. The problem is Microsoft ALSO gives customers the option to install 32-bit Windows 10 which will not run 64-bit programs. That’s crazy. Another advantage of the 64-bit version of Windows is security. There are a variety of security features such as ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization) that work best in 64-bits. The 32-bit version is inherently less secure. By choosing 32-bit Windows 10 a customer is literally choosing a lower performance, LOWER SECURITY, Operating System that is artificially hobbled to not run all software.
 
I've got an old laptop, Dell 5150, that has a processor that does not support 64-bit. I don't use the laptop anymore because I have newer ones that do support 64-bit, but I see no reason to throw away a working laptop just because it can't run 64-bit.

Seven months ago I dug it out and did a clean install of Linux Lite 32-bit just to get used to that process and judge how well it could/would run Linux. I runs as well as the Windows 7 32-bit that it replaced. Unfortunately some Linux distros have dropped 32-bit support so that may end up a dead end.

Weren't some Windows 32-bit devices/hardware announced recently?
 
Certain mobile devices still use a 32 bit x86 processor. I've worked with a few. It allows us to have a more modern operating system, rather than Windows Embedded Compact, which support for has dropped away. I mean, we could use it, but the API that's available with Windows 10 is so much better. (Certain simple things that you can program on a desktop were gargantuan projects on Windows Embedded Compact.)
 
I don't understand the issue of the blog post at all.... the author is bitching about a non existent problem.

You want a bit 64 bit OS, then install it... why would he somehow be offended by the mere existence of a 32 bit version? Idiot.

And for the naysayers I support a LOT of old but really expensive medical shit that works well on any version of Win 32.

MS doesn't turn out code to make themselves feel better, there's obviously a market.
 
I upgrade lots of old computers all the time, and if they are old enough, then a 32-bit operating system gets used. What is kind of annoying is that lots of that old hardware doesn't even support Windows 10 anyway. I have a customer who has a ~15 year old Pentium-M laptop. It's obviously slow, but it's built like a brick and all she does is email and word documents. It's running 32-bit Win7 right now. Win10 won't install on there because apparently the CPU doesn't meet the requirements. With old CPUs not being supported in Win10 for other reasons, I'd imagine the list of CPUs where the 32-bit version of Win10 makes sense is very small.
 
When Windows 10 was initially announced, I was very surprised that they would still be including a 32-bit version as well as the 64-bit version. I could understand a 32-bit Windows 7 at the time, because Vista has multiple issues (some of them driver related), and people were migrating from Windows XP and associated hardware. While there was a 64-bit version of Windows XP, I can count on one hard all the people I have interacted with that used that version--the count is two. The Windows XP (mostly) 32-bit is probably well-know.... for around a decade after the release of Windows XP in October, 2001, most people ran with less than 4GB of memory.... in some cases, far far less because it was bleeping expensive to have 4GB if the motherboard supported it. Today's reality is far different.

The only reason why you want to run a Windows 32-bit operating system is if you are running some extremely legacy 16-bit application that is so old, it qualifies as mold.
 
Microsoft should craft a nicely worded response like this:

"Why do we continue to offer a 32-bit version of Windows? Well...

BECAUSE IT'S OURS AND WE CAN WHATEVER THE FUCK WE WANT WITH IT, THAT'S WHY."
 
There are plenty of new systems for sale, today, that don't have more than 2GB of RAM. Mini PC's and Stick PC's especially and they aren't upgradable. There is no real reason to run 64 bit on these machines and may even reduce performance on these systems. Also, older 32 bit OS's don't really do in place upgrades to 64 bit well. There are also many existing installed devices like cash registers, robotics, etc, that aren't compatible or have drivers for a 64 bit OS.

In the consumer space, I agree that 32 bit isn't needed anymore. That said, there is definitely still a need for 32bit operating systems for legacy stuff. It will go away eventually, but for now, there is no reason to ditch it.
 
I still work on and support a product that is still in production that requires the use of 32-bit Windows due to a lack of 64-bit drivers for the hardware in question (drivers that will never exist, per the manufacturer). We reload every machine we get in and sell with a fresh copy of Windows 10 32-bit. As it is a standalone piece of hardware, we also disable updates and typically all network ports themselves (so that neither Microsoft nor the customer can futz it up in the future). Our software runs quite nicely on Windows 10 64-bit, but the drivers don't and never will. The hardware board in question probably is in the $10K range/ea so even losing the ability to sell existing stock would not be pleasant. Doing a full redesign would be wonderful, but until we utterly cannot get hardware that can run 32-bit Windows, it ain't going to happen -- as said redesign likely would cost several hundred $K in man hours alone. So, from a profit/loss standpoint, as long as Windows 10 32-bit works perfectly, why on earth would we want to discard the units we already have in stock and then spend another several hundred grand redesigning things?

Not all products need 64-bit support and not all products need to be internet/network connected.
(and, before someone suggests it, virtualization is not an option -- the drivers act strangely in a VM, plus we get into issues with some timing critical parts of the system).
 
2 reasons we still need a 32 bit OS.

1. Legacy applications. I still have an custom application at the office that includes some 16 bit code. It will only install and run on a 32 bit OS. Even though the last OS it was supported on was Windows 2000, it still works (most the time) on the 32 bit version on Windows 7. However, I've drawn the line on windows 10. Anyone using this app will have to stay on Windows 7 32 bit, while the rest of the office moves on to Windows 10 64 bit & Office 64 bit. Hopefully that will give them a push to finally replace the application.

2. Older systems & tablets. As other have mentioned, they have older CPU's that don't support a 64 bit OS. I have a windows tablet that only supports 32 bit. Would be a waste to load 64 bit even if it could support it, since the tablet only has 2GB ram, and 64 bit OS's require more ram than 32 bit OS's
 
Also Intel atom processors and low ram.

Pretty much any netbook or tablet with an Atom CPU have 32-bit Windows on it because Atom CPUs have issues with performance handling 64 bit code.

Likewise 64-bit drivers, kernel, and System apps have higher memory usage and on devices with 1-2GB of Ram 32-bit Windows tends to perform much much much better.
 
nutzo said:
2. Older systems & tablets. As other have mentioned, they have older CPU's that don't support a 64 bit OS. I have a windows tablet that only supports 32 bit. Would be a waste to load 64 bit even if it could support it, since the tablet only has 2GB ram, and 64 bit OS's require more ram than 32 bit OS's
Click to expand...

While there is still a market for decade old Core 2 Duo machines that run better with a 32 bit OS, there are other systems like POS, kiosks and ATMs which all employ very limited hardware with paltry amounts of RAM. I work on POS and kiosk systems which are just a couple of years old that use mobile 1.x GHz celerons with 2 GB of RAM at most. I've tried to run 64 bit Windows on these machines and it's painful, they're barely usable once all of the updates get installed. 32 bit Windows on the other hand runs fine on them though because the overhead is much lower.

Trying to force 64 bit on everyone just because it exists is just dumb. If you don't need the additional memory space, there's no point in going 64 bit. It's been shown time and again that recompiling a 32 bit application to be natively 64 bit most of the time doesn't yield noticeable performance benefits.
 
One important reason we still need 32-bit OSes - 16-bit executables.

AMD64 uses the same toggle bit to thunk (ie. switch) the CPU to 16-bit and 64-bit mode (it's how AMD made it more affordable to implement).
Once you thunk to 64-bit, you can only switch to 16-bit after a reset.

So you can either :

1) Run 64-bit + 32-bit on a 64-bit OS
2) Run 32-bit + 16-bit on a 32-bit OS
 
Last edited:
There's one more valid reason for a 32-bit OS that hasn't seemingly been mentioned: older 32-bit games that only use the CPU for graphics rasterization. Some of them are extraordinarily slow because they have to go through the Windows WoW (Windows-on-Windows) layer on the 64-bit OSes, which when processing a game or network related code, can be extremely taxing when it all has to interface with the 64-bit OS. I've seen a handful of games that play just horribly on my 64-bit OS installation, but on the same computer on the 32-bit OS installation, play extremely well.
 
Just for the record: I got a Dell Latitude XT recently, Dell's original tablet laptop (single piece with a swivel display similar to how the ThinkPad X-series tablets work and most older ones) and it's got an Intel Core 2 Duo ULV processor in it at a whopping 1.2 GHz max. Now, while the CPU is 64-bit capable, the XT has 1GB of DDR2 667 soldered directly on the motherboard and has a single SODIMM slot available for a generous acceptance of a huge 2GB stick so, it's 3GB max in this bad boy.

Because of that 3GB limitation I don't have any use to run Windows 7 Professional 64-bit on it so, 32-bit it is. It runs better, a bit smoother in operation, and since there's that RAM cap in place there's no reason to bother with it at all. Someone said I might actually might be able to get a 4GB stick in it to work for 5GB maxed out but a 4GB SODIMM of DDR2 667 RAM these days costs more than I paid for the damned laptop itself so nope, ain't happening.

Works just fine with Windows 7 Professional 32-bit, fully updated as of yesterday, not one single issue. And yes I did install Windows 10 on it a few days ago to lock in the upgrade in case I sell it and the new owner wants to use that OS, but as soon as the install was done, bam, restored my Windows 7 Pro image and that was that. :D
 
Backblaze should stick to something they know instead of a BS post like this.
 
Tiberian said:
Just for the record: I got a Dell Latitude XT recently, Dell's original tablet laptop (single piece with a swivel display similar to how the ThinkPad X-series tablets work and most older ones) and it's got an Intel Core 2 Duo ULV processor in it at a whopping 1.2 GHz max. Now, while the CPU is 64-bit capable, the XT has 1GB of DDR2 667 soldered directly on the motherboard and has a single SODIMM slot available for a generous acceptance of a huge 2GB stick so, it's 3GB max in this bad boy.

Because of that 3GB limitation I don't have any use to run Windows 7 Professional 64-bit on it so, 32-bit it is. It runs better, a bit smoother in operation, and since there's that RAM cap in place there's no reason to bother with it at all. Someone said I might actually might be able to get a 4GB stick in it to work for 5GB maxed out but a 4GB SODIMM of DDR2 667 RAM these days costs more than I paid for the damned laptop itself so nope, ain't happening.

Works just fine with Windows 7 Professional 32-bit, fully updated as of yesterday, not one single issue. And yes I did install Windows 10 on it a few days ago to lock in the upgrade in case I sell it and the new owner wants to use that OS, but as soon as the install was done, bam, restored my Windows 7 Pro image and that was that. :D
Click to expand...

How did it actually run under Windows 10 out of curiosity, or didn't you run it for long enough?
 
BulletDust said:
How did it actually run under Windows 10 out of curiosity, or didn't you run it for long enough?
Click to expand...

It runs Windows 10 fine, and you already know that - I've never said that Windows 10 can't match the performance of previous versions of Windows (especially on such older hardware with RAM limtations), that's not the reason I choose not to use it myself or recommend it.

I know what Windows 10 is, more than most, and as someone that quashed a few hundred bugs early on in the alpha stages I can say it was a totally different beast and something I actually looked forward to in some respects but there was a point where everything shifted and it became what it is now: basically an OS for harvesting as much user and usage data as possible and that's when I literally reached for the power button, shut off my laptop, grabbed my Windows 7 Pro installation stick and that was that. :D

I had to manually install several drivers on the clean install (after the upgrade), some of the Broadcom related items because they're always proprietary crap that Broadcom won't let Microsoft distribute through Windows Update (stupid on so many levels), the N-trig digitizer hardware got a slight version bump with Windows 10 but they weren't installed as part of the installation media content, they came down with the first hit of Windows Update but everything worked which was not surprising and not unexpected.

Had to install the QuickSet drivers to make the tablet buttons function as well (for changing the display orientation as needed, plus the little jog shuttle on the side of the display which is awesome for reading purposes and not having to physically swipe to change pages, etc).

Windows 10 works well on the Latitude XT considering the age of the machine, so that's a plus, but the OS still sucks IMO and I still won't use it personally, I only install it for potential upgrade purposes in case I decide to sell the hardware at a later time and the new owner might want it. Aside from the nature of the PATA 1.8" 4200 rpm hard drive being the biggest thing hampering performance (it can be excruciatingly slow at times depending on the task at hand), it's actually pretty snappy overall. I installed Ubuntu 16.04 and Linux Mint 18.1 (32-bit) on it and both OSes ran fine aside from that hard drive being the performance killer - the N-trig digitizer works great by default on those distros too which was actually surprising but nice to see it working after the installation.

But it runs Windows 7 the best in my testing which too wasn't surprising at all considering the code base maturity and the stability of the drivers overall. I'm hoping to get an mSATA SSD in it soon - there's an adapter available to mate an mSATA SSD with the ZIF connector so that gives me some hope for better performance. No it'll never be a barn storming computing beast of a machine but any boost at this point to get over that 4200 rpm drive will be a big plus. The interface should be able to do a max of 133MB/s (UDMA of course) which would be a huge difference on top of the raw access times that SSD's are so capable of.

Anyway, I finally got a Latitude XT which was the whole idea so I'm good to go, it works 100%, not a mark on it top to bottom, and compared to the original price when it was sold I think I did pretty damned good. :D
 
When has MS done anything based on real world (even poor real world) advice from "users" or for any potentially rational reason?

It's hard enough figuring out the constantly changing rules on the W10 various OEM transfer rules much less why they do what they do. :banghead:
 
I can say that the x64 version of Win10 does not run the version of Shimadzu Openlabs for HPLC my work has licensed, but the 32 bit version does. Almost all of our other equipment requires some sort of legacy technology to run (like ISA ports).
 
bigdogchris said:
Windows 7 should have been the last 32 bit OS.
Click to expand...
Heck, I questioned a 32-bit Vista, especially since it was such a heavy OS. One could say that foregoing a 32-bit Vista would have hurt adoption, but hindsight being 20-20... could it have been any worse?
 
Shintai said:
Backblaze should stick to something they know instead of a BS post like this.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more, so many companies with limited or even great success in their single field all of the sudden think they are as experienced as anyone. There is a reason there isn't more than a single Microsoft. That shit is hard to do, it's not a single tech like hard disk cloud backup. For fucks sake the hubris on these people. Love to see them write windows themselves, with the full bios API support as well as all the other underlying api's. All they do is show how clueless they are.
 
32 bit systems are slightly snappier on older systems. The oldest platform I'd consider capable of doing anything useful is the Core 2. I had people come to me with Core 2 systems coupled with 2 Gigs of RAM and XP still on there because they skipped Vista. A few times I tried both 7 64 bit and 7 32 bit. The 32 bit one felt quicker.I usually forced their hand to upgrade to 7 because it was more idiot proof.
I don't mind choice - plenty of people bring their pitchforks when optical media or parallel/RS232 ports are discussed. In this day and age of easy integration of various controllers into the chipset, I never see these relics as a problem.

Only older technology that was annoying me were IDE drives. I felt the ports take up a lot of real estate on the boards, and also the ribbon cables had a tendency to generate UDMA CRC errors. That had to go with the advent of SATA.

Keeping 32 bit versions does cost some maintenance, but in return it lets people re-use older hardware, or access their older software on newer hardware. Compile time is a cost, providing physical media with the 32 bit version is also a cost, but providing a downloadable image of a 32 bit version is a nice middle ground that would benefit both parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top