[S-99]

Ok, so I take it 32 bit has been around for a while, and the fact that it has a version released on newer OS's is just a sort of useless tradition now?  Is there any benefit to 32 bit at all?

Pretty much. But, not totally useless. There's plenty of still working fine 32 bit only processors out there that's still useful. Apple has already made the move to 64 bit completely. Microsoft has made a nicely progressive swing to 64 bit with people no preferring to run 64 bit windows 7. Apple has already decided not to make a 32 bit version of it's newer os's, microsoft may follow eventually. Linux will however continue to support 32 bit processors for a long time into the future because linux doesn't really drop support for much of anything. This means that you will be able to install the latest version of linux that comes out in 2015 on a p4 computer. Whereas windows 14, and macosx liono wont.

No, not on modern Desktop/Laptop machines.

Calling it a "useless tradition" is wrong though. It still has a place in some areas (basically, anywhere where processing power is not critical, think netbooks, iPad-like devices, smartphones and embedded devices).

Not totally a useless tradition, but almost. The intel atom n450 is 64 bit capable is in all third generation netbooks (first was celeron M based, then atom n270, now it's atom n450). Most mobile devices don't use an x86 processor. I wouldn't really call a netbook a mobile device since it's just a really small laptop. Mobile devices have a very strong and almost definite assurance that they're ARM based. Really the continued support for 32 bit only processors is that there's plenty of decent 32 bit only processors out there (i'm speaking of the p3 (the p3 is still decent in my mind), 32 bit p4, and the k7) in good computers used for whatever. And like i mentioned, that continued support right now is coming from microsoft, and in the end will only be linux.

Speaking of ARM processors in mobile devices. ARM does not use the x86 instruction set, and while there is 32 bit and 64 bit ARM processors. The evolution of mobile devices is different since they're smaller devices that use a different processor instruction set that don't need to have so much horespower, storage, or even much memory.

EDIT: @CommanderDJ
Of course you can still run you're old 32 bit programs in a 64 bit environment. 64 bit os's have all the 64 bit libraries and dependencies they need for 64 bit programs to run. While within a 64 bit os there will be 32 bit libraries and dependencies to let 32 bit programs to run inside of a 64 bit environment. That's how 64 bit windows, macosx, and linux gets it done.

[Nuke]

64 bit systems also have other things in its favor other than just memory capacity. for example you can have 64 bit integers which can be operated on in one cycle. when using floating point it means you can use doubles instead of floats at no additional cost to cpu time. this means more precision when performing operations. you also have more registers to work with.

64 bit systems generally only use a 48 or 52 bit address bus, for practicality reasons. it means fewer traces need to be etched onto the motherboard, which would make the layout larger, and take up space which could be used to add more components. you really dont need the full bus on a board that only has room for a tiny fraction of the possible memory a full 64 bit bus could handle. if it wasnt for that pesky netbook craze, 32 bit would have been dropped by now.

[CommanderDJ]

Well, after reading all this I am firmly set on upgrading my computer to the 64bit version of Windows 7. Keep the discussion going if you want, guys, it's a good read.

[S-99]

if it wasnt for that pesky netbook craze, 32 bit would have been dropped by now.

Yeah, one of the reasons i didn't care for when netbooks became popular. I like to run the same version of linux on all of my computers. Since i blew up my first netbook. I was very happy to find the atom n450 in the acer is 64 bit capable, and i bought a replacement.

[Klaustrophobia]

32 bit isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  it's not just netbooks and mobile keeping it around.  there's no reason to NOT get 64 bit when you're getting a new OS anyway, but in most cases there's also no reason to drop your 32 bit XP (or whatever) if you already have it just to get 64 bit.  a small performance boost in limited sets of applications is not enough for me to spend $100+ and rebuild a system that has been slowly built up, tweaked, and customized just the way i want it.

i believe we're a ways off yet from 64 bit becoming the standard.

[newman]

but in most cases there's also no reason to drop your 32 bit XP (or whatever)

Only true if you don't have over 4GB RAM and don't intend to upgrade soon either. Anyone who uses a computer for more than email and excel will have a use for more RAM and will therefore require a 64 bit OS to utilize it. Believe me, with the renderer crashing due to low memory and the deadline for it rapidly approaching, you'll soon learn to appreciate the differences between 32 and 64 bit.
Also, I've been using a 64 bit os for quite some time now and had zero compatibility problems. Even played some old games on Dosbox recently

[headdie]

but in most cases there's also no reason to drop your 32 bit XP (or whatever)

Only true if you don't have over 4GB RAM and don't intend to upgrade soon either. Anyone who uses a computer for more than email and excel will have a use for more RAM and will therefore require a 64 bit OS to utilize it. Believe me, with the renderer crashing due to low memory and the deadline for it rapidly approaching, you'll soon learn to appreciate the differences between 32 and 64 bit.
Also, I've been using a 64 bit os for quite some time now and had zero compatibility problems. Even played some old games on Dosbox recently

oi i still only have 1gb

[newman]

..which doesn't really change my point

[The E]

Seriously though, the only people who need or can appreciate 64 bit CPUs are gamers and guys who need high-performance machines. Lest we forget, the majority of PCs serves time as glorified typewriters or web frontends, and those do not need 64 bit processing, or more than 2 Gb of RAM.

[Nuke]

but its not good for the industry to float around in the limbo area between 64 and 32 bit. manufacturers need to provide drivers for both, hardware needs to support both. you need to support 2 sets of users. the software industry has to provide builds for both.

when you consider most of the hardware thats been available for the last 5 or so years has supported 64 bit. and even with less than 4 gb you could reap the other benefits of 64 bit. moms computer runs win xp 64, despite having only 2gb of ram. the computer is 6 or 7 years old, with all the original hardware. i was able to find drivers for everything without trouble. i find the 64 bit os makes the computer run a little bit faster than it used to. if youre gonna by new hardware you might as well get a 64 bit os, because at some point in the not too distant future 32 bit is gonna be dropped, merely on the grounds that 4gb of ram will be dirt cheap. thumbing through any computer add its not hard to find low end machines with 4 gigs of ram. the next wave of low end machines will no doubt have more.

[Admiral LSD]

One point that I don't believe has come up yet, but should be mentioned, is that, if you buy a normal retail (It should also apply to MSDN/AA keys as well, but OEM versions are still sold in seperate 32 and 64 bit packages afaik) copy of Windows 7 (upgrade or full, makes no difference), you actually get both 64-bit and 32-bit media in the box meaning you can install 64-bit (which, as mentioned previously, should be your first call if your CPU supports it and you have 2GB or more RAM) to start with and, in the event something doesn't work, can easily downgrade to 32-bit. If the misbehaving apps aren't games, and you're prepared to fork out for 7 Pro, then you can try XP Mode, which MS recently made compatible with both VT and non-VT enabled CPUs, but it's worth the price hike over Home Premium on its own.

As for application and hardware compatibility, I've been running x64 7 since the beta and, aside from the typical new OS teething issues early on, it's handled everything I've thrown at it more or less. If your experience with 64-bit OSs has previously been with Linux, XP or even Vista, then I highly recommend you give it another chance with 7.

[S-99]

32 bit isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  it's not just netbooks and mobile keeping it around.  there's no reason to NOT get 64 bit when you're getting a new OS anyway, but in most cases there's also no reason to drop your 32 bit XP (or whatever) if you already have it just to get 64 bit.  a small performance boost in limited sets of applications is not enough for me to spend $100+ and rebuild a system that has been slowly built up, tweaked, and customized just the way i want it.

i believe we're a ways off yet from 64 bit becoming the standard.

Again, the new pineview atom n450 netbooks are 64 bit capable. The end of 32 bit only netbooks has come and gone with past intel celeron m and atom n270 netbooks. Mobile devices are following a different evolution, one that netbooks don't share. For mobile devices it's mainly the ARM processor, which is not an x86 processor. For all points and purposes towards your thinking in mobile technology. Yeah, 32 bit processors can be in those devices for a long time because i don't think anyone any time soon is going to need something like an 64 bit ARM dual core 8gb ram iphone any time soon

[Fury]

Latest high-end phones have dual-core ARM v7 based CPU's with clock frequency of around 1GHz. Internal memory capacity varies between 512MB - 1GB.

[Nuke]

embedded systems are an entirely different animal. and while there are embedded x86 systems everywhere running 32 bit. usually they run windows ce and windows embedded. there is really no point to running something like windows 7 enterprise on an atm or self checkout stand. it would essentially be overkill. so the oses only provide enough functionality to run one application. then you got oses for consumer portables, like windows mobile, but those devices are usually running on arm architecture. while there are small scale 32 bit x86 machines, they are generally not targeted to the consumer market.

[S-99]

Latest high-end phones have dual-core ARM v7 based CPU's with clock frequency of around 1GHz. Internal memory capacity varies between 512MB - 1GB.

They don't have 8gb of ram yet
Mobile devices right now are most likely switching over to 64 bit capable processors regardless of whether or not it be arm or x86, but i'm thinking more of 64 bit arm adoption than anything (not for future proofing, but current demand for what smartphones need to be able to do and more). If it's an x86 mobile device out there, it's probably 32 bit since x86 processors are usually more expensive than arm based.

[Mikes]

Latest high-end phones have dual-core ARM v7 based CPU's with clock frequency of around 1GHz. Internal memory capacity varies between 512MB - 1GB.

They don't have 8gb of ram yet
Mobile devices right now are most likely switching over to 64 bit capable processors regardless of whether or not it be arm or x86, but i'm thinking more of 64 bit arm adoption than anything (not for future proofing, but current demand for what smartphones need to be able to do and more). If it's an x86 mobile device out there, it's probably 32 bit since x86 processors are usually more expensive than arm based.

I'm already playing Monkey Island (and several other Lucas Arts adventures that i bought a LONG time ago) on my Cellphone via ScummVM.

I say keep going until we get Freespace 2 capable phones, pretty please!!! Pretty please with a cherry on top!

(I'd so get one of these picoprojectors and a bluetooth joystick to go along with it too mwahahahah)

[Nuke]

i wish they would stop calling it a phone and call it what it is, a computer with voip.

[S-99]

I'm just running linux mint 9 64 bit with 2gb of ram. It's going fine. I did it for the occasional speed increase in whatever i use, for when i get more memory, and i like 64 bit. By about now, almost all linux software has been ported to 64 bit, this also furthered my desire for wanting it. I still play my 32 bit only windows games in wine. All my other games have 64 bit executables. The only game i needed to accomodate a 32 bit library for was fso. I grabbed this specific 32 bit library, and away i was playing 32 bit fso in 64 bit linux.

As for anything else, yeah the community here knows the need to make some 64 bit executables.

[The E]

Umm.

You do know that at least on Linux, you can compile a 64-bit exe yourself?

And I would argue against there being a "need" to make 32-bit exes.

[S-99]

Umm.

You do know that at least on Linux, you can compile a 64-bit exe yourself?

And I would argue against there being a "need" to make 32-bit exes.

I know that, but it was much easier getting the 32 bit one working. Well, if you think there's no need for 32 bit exes.....