Slashdot Mirror
Why Does Microsoft Still Offer a 32-bit OS? (backblaze.com)
Brian Wilson, a founder of cloud storage service BackBlaze, writes in a blog post: Moving over to a 64-bit OS allows your laptop to run BOTH the old compatible 32-bit processes and also the new 64-bit processes. In other words, there is zero downside (and there are gigantic upsides). Because there is zero downside, the first time it could, Apple shipped with 64-bit OS support. Apple did not give customers the option of "turning off all 64-bit programs." Apple first shipped 64-bit support in OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard in 2009. This was so successful that Apple shipped all future Operating Systems configured to support both 64-bit and 32-bit processes. All of them. But let's contrast the Apple approach with that of Microsoft. 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. My problem is this: Backblaze, like any good technology vendor, wants to be easy to use and friendly. In this case, that means we need to quietly, invisibly, continue to support BOTH the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions of every Microsoft OS they release. And we'll probably need to do this for at least 5 years AFTER Microsoft officially retires the 32-bit only version of their operating system.
Some computers still run on 32 bit processors. In many businesses you have the need to update software for security reasons but are unable to update hardware.
For some people, 4096MB *are* enough. And why buy a new computer when your old is working fast enough for you.
and Apple doesn't.
Now you can run old custom 32 bit programs in a newer 64 bit OS and mostly it will run fine, but why replace "100% guaranteed to run" with "most likely will run"? Especially with old funky device drivers that were fine-tuned for the old setup?
64-bit versions of Windows do not support 16-bit components, 16-bit processes, or 16-bit applications
That's why. There is still a TON of legacy apps out there in use that won't function properly. I don't have that problem. But it exists. And that's only one of the reasons. I'm sure there are other reasons.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
The 64 bit footprint is bigger.
I have a cheap-o Asus tablet hybrid thing. It's only about 3 years old. Still works. The CPU is 64-bit in theory, but the EFI bios only allows 32-bit Windows. It's tied to the license key or something.
Installing software on the flash of this device is _tight_ and with 4GB or RAM there isn't a lot of real advantage to 64-bit Windows anyway.
I think this article might have been written by someone who only gets use cases for modern high-performance machines.
I can't tell if most Slashdotters are teenagers, or live in a single office room and never venture outside. Because there are TONS OF BUSINESSES that still use legacy software A DECADE out of "support." The people that wrote the software have left the company. There's no documentation. And the software _still_ _works_.
Whenever you replace software, you have to understand it (a huge task), you have to re-implement it (a huge task), you have to transition it from old-to-new without corrupting data or interrupting business. (sometimes a huge task.)
I'm currently updating a .NET 1.1 / VS2003 application. It's a pain in the ass and even throwing C++ EXCEPTIONS even though its a C# program. A google of the error message returns... no results. Yay!
Meanwhile, in the last three years I've met not one, but TWO, different companies that still run their internet-connected AS/400 (Google it.) in a live, critical environment. And last year I found the reason a lab was running so slow... it funneled everything (including 150MBit wireless) through a 10 MBit ethernet... hub. (Not a switch.)
Legacy exists everywhere. It's a real problem. Hell, look at the B-52's that were designed in 1955, and we're STILL FLYING THEM as part of our essential air force. (I'm guessing because they cost a 100x less to fly than the billion dollar B-2's.) When was the last time you went to Radioshack (ha!) and bought a bunch of VACUUM TUBES to fix your multi-million dollar airplane. Well, the military has that exact problem.
I'm in the private sector and I still see the software equivalent every month.
First we bitch at Apple because they stopped supporting 32-bit machines after 10.8. Now we bitch at Microsoft because they *still* support 32-bit machines.
Please make up your mind, people.
If they've got to Google the AS/400, then maybe Slashdot isn't really the best place for them to visit/comment?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
There are enough consumer grade PCs still out there that can't run a 64-bit OS that they'd have had a premature migration to other systems if Windows 7 pr 8 had be 64-bit only. First rule of business is don't piss off your customers, and Microsoft on rare occasions actually remembers this rule.
Whining about how hard it is to support your customers should not be done in public, it's just bad business.