Microsoft Phasing Out 32 bit Windows 10

bigdogchris

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,707
Microsoft will instead only supply OEMs with 64-bit builds of its operating system for distribution on new computers.

Notably, this does not impact users that are currently running a 32-bit version of Windows 10 as Microsoft said it remains committed to providing security and feature updates for these devices. What’s more, Microsoft will still make 32-bit versions of the OS available in non-OEM channels to support various upgrade scenarios, we’re told.
Click to expand...

SOURCE
 
Finally.

This should have happened a long long time ago.

No desktop CPU since the initial Core Solo and Duo's from 2006, or if you include Atom chips, the Lincroft z6xx chips in 2010-2011 has lacked 64bit support.

There has been no reason for 32bit windows to exist, apart from supporting a dwindling few on terribly obsolete hardware now for a long time. Much better to consolidate everything around a single architecture.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
There has been no reason for 32bit windows to exist, apart from supporting a dwindling few on terribly obsolete hardware now for a long time.
Click to expand...

32 bit versions of Windows have a place on lower end hardware, it runs faster and uses fewer resources. Up until just a few years ago, OEMs were shitting out low clocked dual core, 4 GB machines with trashy 5400 RPM hard drives. HP and lenovo were notorious for this, especially with their "all in one" models, which was essentially a screen with a laptop motherboard stuck in the back. AMD's super low end APUs and Intel's Celerons were prime fodder for these dumpster fire machines to be sold by used car salesmen at inflated prices.

I've had to install 32 bit Windows on these machines to get them to even run right because the CPUs are so limited, but Linux is a better alternative when possible. Most people that bought these machines didn't know any better and don't have the cash for even a used system to replace them.
 
GiGaBiTe said:
32 bit versions of Windows have a place on lower end hardware, it runs faster and uses fewer resources. Up until just a few years ago, OEMs were shitting out low clocked dual core, 4 GB machines with trashy 5400 RPM hard drives. HP and lenovo were notorious for this, especially with their "all in one" models, which was essentially a screen with a laptop motherboard stuck in the back. AMD's super low end APUs and Intel's Celerons were prime fodder for these dumpster fire machines to be sold by used car salesmen at inflated prices.

I've had to install 32 bit Windows on these machines to get them to even run right because the CPUs are so limited, but Linux is a better alternative when possible. Most people that bought these machines didn't know any better and don't have the cash for even a used system to replace them.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting. I've never noticed 64 bit versions of any OS running slower than 32bit versions.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Hmm. Interesting. I've never noticed 64 bit versions of any OS running slower than 32bit versions.
Click to expand...
I will agree with him that the 64-bit code-base is much larger than a 32-bit code base; this goes for all ISAs, though, not just x86-32 and x86-64.
But aside from that, I'm with you - haven't seen much of a difference performance-wise between 32-bit and 64-bit OSes and applications aside from the memory and resource usage.

If anything, due to the tighter and more limited resources, I've actually seen 32-bit OSes and applications performing worse than their 64-bit variants more times than not.
That includes bare metal, and VMs.
 
GiGaBiTe said:
32 bit versions of Windows have a place on lower end hardware, it runs faster and uses fewer resources. Up until just a few years ago, OEMs were shitting out low clocked dual core, 4 GB machines with trashy 5400 RPM hard drives. HP and lenovo were notorious for this, especially with their "all in one" models, which was essentially a screen with a laptop motherboard stuck in the back. AMD's super low end APUs and Intel's Celerons were prime fodder for these dumpster fire machines to be sold by used car salesmen at inflated prices.

I've had to install 32 bit Windows on these machines to get them to even run right because the CPUs are so limited, but Linux is a better alternative when possible. Most people that bought these machines didn't know any better and don't have the cash for even a used system to replace them.
Click to expand...

Yeah but, at least the Celeron worked well enough, the low end AMD APU was just to slow, even from the start. However, I did have a tablet with one at 1.3 ghz and quad core which worked well with Windows 8.1.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Hmm. Interesting. I've never noticed 64 bit versions of any OS running slower than 32bit versions.
Click to expand...

It's more prevalent on older processors like the Pentium 4. Netburst was originally a 32 bit only architecture, EM64T (Intel's version of x86_64) was bolted on much later in the Pentium 4's lifetime. Intel didn't do a stellar job with it, and 64 bit code often had problems performing well on the Pentium 4. But even in the Core 2, I find that 32 bit stuff generally runs better, especially when you have less than 4 GB of RAM.

Lakados said:
I have but on super limited hardware old dual core stuff with less than 4gb of ram, I am glad it is going away.
Click to expand...

I'm not, because Microsoft was the last excuse a lot of people had for still supporting 32 bit stuff, meaning a lot of older hardware is going to not be able to run newer programs or new versions of programs in the future. If you're into vintage computing, it kinda sucks. Linux already had the 32 bit apocalypse with Ubuntu trying to kill off 32 bit entirely, even application support. Fortunately that backfired, but most distributions have started dropping 32 bit releases. Getting 32 bit libraries to work on 64 bit Linux can be a bit of a pain.

Lakados said:
I can only imagine how much legacy bloat it will let them pull out of the OS.
Click to expand...

It won't really affect how much code is in the OS, 64 bit Windows still has to have the "windows on windows" compatibility layer for win32 applications. The only thing that will really be removed is Win16 support still present in 32 bit versions of Windows, even Windows 10. So all of those people still using the Windows 3.x program manager in Windows 10 will be disappointed.
 
About a year ago I bought a cheap Windows 10 tablet (Dell Venue 10 Pro 5130 that uses the low powered POS Intel ATOM chips) that is the slowest device I ever had the displeasure of using & owning.

Anyway that device is 64-bit capable but it came with a 32-bit OS from the factory!

I can't believe I actually bought it, and a docking station, and the keyboard. Luckily all was not lost as I recently was gifted a Dell Venue 10 7130 which happens to be compatible with those same accessories. Yay! for me.

My hardware is all mostly newer stuff that has more then 4GB of ram anyway, So other then that Dell tablet I can't remember the last time (other then Windows XP for legacy reasons for not internet connected machines) I actually installed a 32-bit OS.
 
GiGaBiTe said:
I'm not, because Microsoft was the last excuse a lot of people had for still supporting 32 bit stuff, meaning a lot of older hardware is going to not be able to run newer programs or new versions of programs in the future. If you're into vintage computing, it kinda sucks. Linux already had the 32 bit apocalypse with Ubuntu trying to kill off 32 bit entirely, even application support. Fortunately that backfired, but most distributions have started dropping 32 bit releases. Getting 32 bit libraries to work on 64 bit Linux can be a bit of a pain.
Click to expand...

Yeah, IMHO killing off 32 bit versions of operating systems is LONG overdue.

Killing off 32bit application support, however, is just plain moronic.
 
Last edited:
In reality, Microsoft already killed off 32-bit a long time ago. Installing anything later than Windows 7 requires a CPU that supports NX-bit. But 99% of the CPUs that support NX-bit also support 64-bit, in which case you are better off simply installing the 64-bit version of Windows.

So for machines like an older 32-bit Pentium 4, or a 32-bit Pentium-M, you can't even install Windows 8, never mind Windows 10. This also applies to server operating systems, where the most recent version you can install is Server 2008. It's sort of a shame really, as I love to put older hardware to use. I have a 32-bit Pentium-M laptop that is maxed out in terms of upgrades, and still does fine for simple tasks like web browsing, streaming music, acting as a host for an IP webcam, etc. I have a dual-xeon system (Gallatin CPUs, 2 processors, 4 threads) that is actually still pretty snappy ever since I added an SSD. They are both stuck on Windows 7, and have been for years, so this really changes nothing.
 
Last edited:
Good news for a change!

I understand how MS loves backwards compat but this was long overdue.
 
For a Microsoft decision, this one seems rather good. Stop selling 32bit for new purchases while supporting existing users and those with edge cases that for some reason HAVE to have a 32bit OS.
 
GiGaBiTe said:
32 bit versions of Windows have a place on lower end hardware, it runs faster and uses fewer resources. Up until just a few years ago, OEMs were shitting out low clocked dual core, 4 GB machines with trashy 5400 RPM hard drives. HP and lenovo were notorious for this, especially with their "all in one" models, which was essentially a screen with a laptop motherboard stuck in the back. AMD's super low end APUs and Intel's Celerons were prime fodder for these dumpster fire machines to be sold by used car salesmen at inflated prices.

I've had to install 32 bit Windows on these machines to get them to even run right because the CPUs are so limited, but Linux is a better alternative when possible. Most people that bought these machines didn't know any better and don't have the cash for even a used system to replace them.
Click to expand...

There are still low clock dual core processors everywhere. My i5-7300U in my Latitude 7480 is one. The thing draaaaaags. I keep windows around for occasional use but 64-bit Ubuntu runs SO MUCH BETTER.
 
Oh noes...microsoft whittling away at the niches - Win 10 48bit is next on the chopping block. The custom 56bit version won't be far behind. Better upgrade to Win 10 96bit Edition ASAP.
 
I am a little surprised it's taken this long, though with such a huge legacy customer base I'm sure Microsoft had their reasons for continuing to maintain Win32.

Linux distributions have mostly abandoned i386, outside of a handful of legacy-friendly and highly performance-sensitive variants; the number of distributions offering a kernel without Physical Address Extensions is even smaller. macOS dropped 32-bit installs a while ago. The end of 32-bit Windows as a distinct product was inevitable. While 32-bit support libraries will continue to be available, people still holding on to anything adjacent to Win16 should be looking at virtualization solutions if they weren't before.

There's an entire separate discussion of 32-bit support libraries for 64-bit OSes. As there are more 32-bit applications still in regular use than molecules of salt in the Pacific Ocean, support for those will need to continue for A While... unless you're using macOS, where the decision was recently, ruthlessly made for you.

GiGaBiTe said:
It's more prevalent on older processors like the Pentium 4. Netburst was originally a 32 bit only architecture, EM64T (Intel's version of x86_64) was bolted on much later in the Pentium 4's lifetime. Intel didn't do a stellar job with it, and 64 bit code often had problems performing well on the Pentium 4. But even in the Core 2, I find that 32 bit stuff generally runs better, especially when you have less than 4 GB of RAM.
Click to expand...

I've got a feeling the Pentium 4s were hobbled by the hit to effective cache size from the shift to 64-bit mode. Intel had a hell of a time packing enough cache into the chip to keep data available for that deep pipeline while balancing thermal performance and affordability. When effective memory consumption's increased by 15-20% on an architecture where every kilobyte counts, something's gotta give. The net result was functional, but perceptibly slower than a 32-bit OS on the same machine. Somewhere out there, a person inevitably ran 64-bit Vista on a Celeron D with less than a gig of RAM. Light a candle for them.

At the moment I can't find the article, but a long time ago I read that for Conroe there was some prefetch optimization that wasn't enabled in 64-bit mode but ran fine in 32-bit mode. I believe that was fixed for Wolfdale, but was probably the culprit for lower performance there.
 
Last edited:
/dev/null said:
There are still low clock dual core processors everywhere. My i5-7300U in my Latitude 7480 is one. The thing draaaaaags. I keep windows around for occasional use but 64-bit Ubuntu runs SO MUCH BETTER.
Click to expand...

Linux really wakes up older hardware. I like it because Linux doesn't have memory licensing like Windows does. With consumer 32 bit versions of Windows, you're limited to 4 GB of address space, not because of architecture limits, but because of memory licensing. 32 bit versions of Linux with PAE/PSE kernels can address up to 64 GB of RAM with a limit of 4 GB per process. This is really helpful on lower end machines because 32 bit Linux distros are considerably smaller in both hard disk footprint and use noticeably less memory. It's also helpful on weird 32 bit only boards that can have more than 4 GB of RAM installed using bank switching. I had one such Super micro board back in the day and I could only use Linux on it if I wanted to use all 12 GB of RAM since the Xeons were 32 bit parts with no 64 bit options available.

There are ugly hacks you can do on 32 bit Windows to force the use of PAE and address up to 64 GB, but it tends to make the OS unstable. I've done it with Windows XP Pro and Windows 7, but in both cases, the system would hang quite often and would need to be restarted. There really shouldn't be any reason it can't run stably, because XP was very similar to Windows Server 2003, and the 32 bit version did allow up to 64 GB of RAM in PAE mode. The same with Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2 32 bit could use PAE as well with no real problems.

Halon said:
I've got a feeling the Pentium 4s were hobbled by the hit to effective cache size from the shift to 64-bit mode. Intel had a hell of a time packing enough cache into the chip to keep data available for that deep pipeline while balancing thermal performance and affordability. When effective memory consumption's increased by 15-20% on an architecture where every kilobyte counts, something's gotta give. The net result was functional, but perceptibly slower than a 32-bit OS on the same machine. Somewhere out there, a person inevitably ran 64-bit Vista on a Celeron D with less than a gig of RAM. Light a candle for them.

At the moment I can't find the article, but a long time ago I read that for Conroe there was some prefetch optimization that wasn't enabled in 64-bit mode but ran fine in 32-bit mode. I believe that was fixed for Wolfdale, but was probably the culprit for lower performance there.
Click to expand...

Yeah Intel had cache problems like mad with the P4. Netburst was so reliant on large caches that it wasn't until they started putting 1MB+ of L2 cache on the die that they started performing better. AMD on the other hand had such an optimized architecture with the Athlon, that even when they cut the cache down to 64 kb on the Duron, it was only something like 10% slower. The Celerons at the time were awful with their paltry 128 kb of cache, even a Pentium 3 could run circles around them.


The perf issues I remember were definitely earlier Core 2 parts using the Conroe or Allendale cores. Wolfdale fixed a ton of performance issues and was quite a bit faster clock for clock. I still go through old Core 2 machines and upgrade them to at least an E8400 if they're capable, which makes a world of difference from the older E6xxx/5xxx parts and the even slower "Pentium Dual Core" E2xxx parts. Surprisingly, late Core 2 machines are still really good for basic computers for kids to do school work on, so I give them away when they're needed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Halon
like this
GiGaBiTe said:
There are ugly hacks you can do on 32 bit Windows to force the use of PAE and address up to 64 GB, but it tends to make the OS unstable. I've done it with Windows XP Pro and Windows 7, but in both cases, the system would hang quite often and would need to be restarted. There really shouldn't be any reason it can't run stably, because XP was very similar to Windows Server 2003, and the 32 bit version did allow up to 64 GB of RAM in PAE mode. The same with Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2 32 bit could use PAE as well with no real problems.
Click to expand...
The consumer OS versions must have had really crappy bank-switching support if they hung like that, wow.
 
Red Falcon said:
The consumer OS versions must have had really crappy bank-switching support if they hung like that, wow.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling its more the way the ugly hacks work that causes the instability.

Windows XP RTM (basically SP 0) didn't have a memory limit, it was introduced with SP1a. The hack on XP uses the kernel from RTM in SP3, so I think the issue is missing functions in the kernel that applications expect in SP3 that cause the system instability.

As for Windows 7 being unstable with PAE, I don't know. I'm pretty sure the code base is the same vs Server 2008 R2. The only thing I can think of is maybe applications are checking for specific versions of things that aren't matching up and causing problems.
 
I think the instability issues were down to drivers not reliably behaving themselves above the 3.5GB limit. Microsoft couldn’t even enforce proper behavior for all drivers it supported, let alone all the drivers in its ecosystem, so down to 3.5GB it went. Yes, it stinks.
 
ManofGod said:
Yeah but, at least the Celeron worked well enough, the low end AMD APU was just to slow, even from the start. However, I did have a tablet with one at 1.3 ghz and quad core which worked well with Windows 8.1.
Click to expand...
I find Windows 8.1 really lightweight, good for memory-limited systems. I've seen bare installs with no crapware only using 600-700MB of memory which can make a difference. Even on a Atom tablet with only 2GB, 8.1 seemed snappier than 10.
 
I always wondered why they even bothered to release a 32-bit version of win10. Win8 sure, that made sense but as mentioned here the pentium 4 is likely the only processor that you'd want to run 10 on. Can an Athlon XP run 10?

That's some pretty old hardware. Time to let it go. I'd suspect that if you're still running a cpu that can't do 64-bit you're probably not likely to spend the money on a Windows upgrade anyway - barring when they did the free updates of course.

Better late than never!
 
THRESHIN said:
I always wondered why they even bothered to release a 32-bit version of win10. Win8 sure, that made sense but as mentioned here the pentium 4 is likely the only processor that you'd want to run 10 on. Can an Athlon XP run 10?

That's some pretty old hardware. Time to let it go. I'd suspect that if you're still running a cpu that can't do 64-bit you're probably not likely to spend the money on a Windows upgrade anyway - barring when they did the free updates of course.

Better late than never!
Click to expand...
I suspect it had to do with Atom cpus. Even though Atom cores themselves have been 64-bit for awhile, there were some Atom platforms that weren't actually compatible with 64-bit operating systems due to driver issues. Similar thing with early Core 2 platforms I believe, something with the chipsets not being fully 64-bit compatible even though the CPUs were.
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
I suspect it had to do with Atom cpus. Even though Atom cores themselves have been 64-bit for awhile, there were some Atom platforms that weren't actually compatible with 64-bit operating systems due to driver issues. Similar thing with early Core 2 platforms I believe, something with the chipsets not being fully 64-bit compatible even though the CPUs were.
Click to expand...
Yeah the “netbooks” could run Windows 64 and sometimes had the ram for it but it would chunk. Same with a lot of cheap Acer’s/ HP’s running Celerons or Pentiums.
 
Lakados said:
Yeah the “netbooks” could run Windows 64 and sometimes had the ram for it but it would chunk. Same with a lot of cheap Acer’s/ HP’s running Celerons or Pentiums.
Click to expand...

64 Bit Windows Vista Business ran circles around Windows XP and Windows Vista Home Basic on a netbook, with a hard drive. (I used to have one.)
 
Only reason I still have a Win10 32bit machine is for Win16 compatibility mode. I still have some old stuff that needed it.

I hadn't pursued virtualization for it as it was easy enough to have a 32bit OS around. Hopefully by the time they stop patching it someone will have done all the work for easy virtualization. I'd love for something as easy as DOSbox for Win16.
 
Baenwort said:
Only reason I still have a Win10 32bit machine is for Win16 compatibility mode. I still have some old stuff that needed it.

I hadn't pursued virtualization for it as it was easy enough to have a 32bit OS around. Hopefully by the time they stop patching it someone will have done all the work for easy virtualization. I'd love for something as easy as DOSbox for Win16.
Click to expand...
Technically you could install Wine on Windows with 16-bit support enabled - this guide would get you most of the way there. Note that this is a really long way to avoid running a Win16-friendly OS in a VM, but if you're determined, the option is there.
 
GiGaBiTe said:
With consumer 32 bit versions of Windows, you're limited to 4 GB of address space, not because of architecture limits, but because of memory licensing.
Click to expand...
64-bit Windows of the same edition (Home, Pro, whatever) did not require any different licensing and supported over 4 GB and such. I can't recall that the memory was license locked by bitness, but by Home vs Pro vs Whatever edition. The 4 GB limit in 32-bit Windows was a flat out architectural problem separate from any licensing issues. The 32-bit Pro editions all have the same 4 GB limit as the 32-bit Home editions.
 
THRESHIN said:
I always wondered why they even bothered to release a 32-bit version of win10. Win8 sure, that made sense but as mentioned here the pentium 4 is likely the only processor that you'd want to run 10 on. Can an Athlon XP run 10?
Click to expand...

The classic Athlon only had MMX and 3D Now! instruction sets, making Windows XP really the last OS that at least partially supported it. The Athlon XP had SSE, but even it started having compatibility issues towards the end of Windows XPs lifetime as applications started using SSE2. AMD didn't have SSE2 until the Athlon 64, and later SSE3 in later core revisions.

There is a further compatibility issue with Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 64 bit where it requires CMPXCHG16b (compare and exchange 128), something that Athlon 64 and Opteron CPUs didn't have. This means you'll have to use 32 bit versions of the OSes instead, or switch to Linux.

Intel on the other hand had SSE back in the Pentium 3, SSE2 on the first Willamette Pentium 4 and SSE3 on the Prescott, making the Pentium 4 far more forwards compatible. Older Pentium 4 chips still have problems with some modern Windows versions which also require NX bit, something which wasn't present until the later Prescott models and Cedar Mill 64 bit models.
 
LodeRunner said:
64-bit Windows of the same edition (Home, Pro, whatever) did not require any different licensing and supported over 4 GB and such. I can't recall that the memory was license locked by bitness, but by Home vs Pro vs Whatever edition.
Click to expand...

There were indeed memory restrictions imposed by Microsoft on every version of a given OS, irregardless if they were 32 or 64 bit:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/memory/memory-limits-for-windows-releases
https://wiki.esko.com/display/SystemRequirements/Windows+Memory+Limits

If you notice that the starter versions of Vista and 7 had a horrible memory cap at 1/2 GB.


LodeRunner said:
The 4 GB limit in 32-bit Windows was a flat out architectural problem separate from any licensing issues. The 32-bit Pro editions all have the same 4 GB limit as the 32-bit Home editions.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. PAE/PSE was introduced with the Pentium Pro in 1995, which allowed for an extended address bus of 36 bits. This allows all Pentium Pro and onward, as well as all Athlon and onward CPUs to address up to 64 GB of total system memory, with the limitation that no single process can address more than 4 GB total for itself. So you can have multiple processes which consume up to 64 GB if the system in question can support that amount.

Microsoft has 32 bit versions of their server operating systems, like Windows 2000 Advanced Server (8 GB) and Datacenter (32 GB), as well as Windows Server 2003 32 bit editions which can utilize more than 4 GB of memory. The reason that Microsoft didn't enable this feature on consumer versions of 32 bit Windows is because of memory licensing. They don't want companies using consumer versions of Windows to circumvent paying lucrative licensing fees for their server operating systems.

Linux since the introduction of the PAE/PSE kernel can address up to 64 GB of memory in 32 bit mode, with the same limit of only 4 GB can be used per process.
 
I miscommunicated: I meant to state the architectural problem was in Windows, not the hardware as Windows Pro editions on 32-bit had the 4 GB limit, but 64-bit editions did not. As that is the same licensing level (and cost) then that suggests (possibly for legacy reasons) there is a problem with 32-bit Windows clients; for a long time (I believe until Vista?) the server kernel and the desktop kernel were completely separate? I know 64-bit Win XP was a cut down version of 64-bit 2003 Server.
 
LodeRunner said:
As that is the same licensing level (and cost) then that suggests (possibly for legacy reasons) there is a problem with 32-bit Windows clients; for a long time (I believe until Vista?) the server kernel and the desktop kernel were completely separate?
Click to expand...

Windows 2000 was the first version of Windows with a shared code base between the client and server versions, which means that it and future editions use the same drivers and shouldn't have issues addressing more than 4 GB of RAM, except artificial license limits. Most hardware vendors don't issue different drivers for server and client versions of Windows.

LodeRunner said:
I know 64-bit Win XP was a cut down version of 64-bit 2003 Server.
Click to expand...

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition uses Windows server 2003 SP1 as a code base and doesn't cut anything out. Both versions share the same Windows Updates and service packs, but XP Professional x64 Edition has more features ported over from Windows XP Professional, like system restore, Windows messenger, the login screen and a few other things. I used Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for many years and it was quite a bit better than regular 32 bit XP, with the only real caveat is it couldn't run 16 bit applications.

There's another lesser known 64 bit version of Windows XP called Windows XP 64 bit edition for Itanium Systems. It was a full port of the 32 bit Windows XP code base to IA64, with a built in software emulator for x86 to circumvent early Itanium chips' built in hardware x86 emulator which was very slow.
 
What do you want to bet we are another 5 years away from phasing out 32 bit support in windows Server OS's?

I have some specialized cards that just don't work in a pure 64 bit environment. They require 32 bit access still. And replacing... hundreds of these 5k+ cards (t1 cards) gets very expensive and very cumbersome. Not to mention the vendors are in now rush to refresh the hardware stack.
 
I haven't used a 32-bit OS for, what, 20 years? With one exception for a laptop that only had 32-bit driver support. Eventually Linux supported it, so out went Windows.
 
Axman said:
I haven't used a 32-bit OS for, what, 20 years? With one exception for a laptop that only had 32-bit driver support. Eventually Linux supported it, so out went Windows.
Click to expand...
I didn't make my 64 bit switch until Vista came out. XP 64 wasn't quite right and compatibility/drivers had some issues. Microsoft got 64 bit right with Vista and it was a fairly easy transition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top