Does 32bit windows still make sense?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, I totally agree that XP is a "classic". It worked well and it was followed by a problematic offering, thus extending it's life. I will look back on the XP days with fondness, much like I look back on NT 3.51.

But 10 years from now, I will not be running XP and not that many other people will be either. 10 years is a *long* time in the computer industry. There will likely be another TWO generations or more of Microsoft desktop OS's in that period, and XP will be 4 generations out of date, much like Windows 95 is today. There will be new hardware and software that XP won't be able to deal with, just like Windows 95 or Windows 98 today.

The computer industry doesn't stand still for long. XP has had a good run, but it's probably only got a year or two left of being the most widespread OS. Newer, and yes probably better things are coming.
 
Actually Microsoft has committed to providing security hotfixes for XP until 2014. XP is still the most widespread OS and and will be for a while yet, no doubt about it. But you were talking about 10 years from now - XP will be a footnote in the industry by then...
 
xp wil be dominant for a while im not so sure about the 10 years from now thing, but many people running xp systems are satisfied, and most people only choose to upgrade when they become unsatisfied, and the average user is running xp on a dual core with 2 gigs of ram, and for the usual daily tasks of the average user, thats more than enough
 
+1 for 64bit windows 7. I installed it last night and am currently using a dual boot setup with 7 and 32 bit xp. I can tell you right now that from the short time I had to play with win 7, I was impressed. It felt much more crisp than xp, but that may be contributed to the fact that I didn't install antivirus on it yet. I have kaspersky internet security on the xp build which can cause some lag. I do have 4 gigs of ram which I am happy that all of it can be used now.

I think the main problem that people have is that they don't want to leave something they are familiar with and know how to use. Anyone who works in the IT field or has to deal with supporting relatives should know that overall that most people are not openly accepting of change when it comes to computers. 99% of them couldn't tell the difference between 32 and 64 bit operating systems. That is why we, the techies of the world, have to make that decision for them. 64bit not only is the future, but it has increasingly become the present.
 

If you can honestly try XP and windows 7 and then claim that XP is faster, smoother, and works with fewer problems, you need to have your head checked. I'll admit that Vista had some issues initially, and still doesn't work great on low spec systems, but 7 is better than XP in every way.
 
Actually, I just booted my eee with 512 mb of memory, and it was still usable (I set the maximum memory flag in the advanced boot options under msconfig). I'll try it even lower at some point, just to see. It was noticeably slower than it was with a gig though - it was definitely usable, but the difference was significant.
 



^^+1 and agree 100 %

All five of my custom built systems and my girlfriends fathers laptop are running Vista 64 and Windows 7 64 bit.....good bye XP :lol:
 
You know hab,

I believe the thread title is, does 32 bit still make sence, given the fact that xp 64 bit is kinda a joke, and vista 64 and windows 7 64 bit are a step forward instead of backwards. But I guess with your great and vast words of wisdom, LOL, getting a mac would be a step forward from what I have already. No thanks, my PC's can run circles around A mac any day, with Vista 64 bit and Windows 7 64 bit (not XP)

Thanks for the expert advice Hab, your the man!
 
Even if you like OSX better (which is rather odd, but I'll ignore that for the time being), why would you get an older mac? The PowerPC processors were quite a bit more power hungry and quite a bit slower than the Core 2 CPUs that replaced them.

As for 10 years from now? Here's another good reason XP will have been long since abandoned. In 1999, 128MB of RAM was fairly common. Now, in 2009, 4GB is fairly common in new systems. That's an increase of a factor of 2^5. If the same progression continues, in 10 years, 128GB of RAM will be common. XP x64 is a sad, sad joke as 64 bit operating systems are concerned, and XP 32 is limited to 4 gigs of address space. Even if the progression doesn't go as fast as it has in the past 10 years, and 64 gigs is common, you still need a solid 64 bit OS with good driver support, something which XP does not offer.
 

I agree 100%. If he wants to use XP, let him. The great majority of us here on the forum are already on a 64bit OS, I don't want to be stuck with the <4gb barrier, nor DX9 for 10 more years. I've used XP since it debut , when it was getting flames from people who were still stuck on Windows 2000/Me and it was a great OS but tech. changes and we gotta change along with it.

If you wanna use XP 10 years from now Hab, go ahead. Don't try to convince us not to use 64bit OS's and defend XP with your life, we know better. I'm running Vista 64 and I never had a single problem. It runs significantly faster on my system than XP did, i dual booted W7, and was very much impressed by it as well. Will be making the switch to W7 around SP1.
 
Some hardware and software too do not run on Windows 64 bit.

Some very "essential" utilities (e.g. Security utility Sandboxie ) also do not run on Windows 64 bit. Also, to lesser extent, few "freeware" utilities do not provide the 64 bit version for free yet.

I have found that I always have to keep a Windows XP 32 bit handy (either in VMWare or an extra machine at home) for use when such programs are required.
 


I guess that it all depends on your (or your corporation's) needs. If you are a user with an older PC, only 2 GB ram, slower graphics card, AND you already have a 32 bit OS that you are happy with, then why change?

If you are a corporation with >500 users and some legacy apps that will be expensive to re-code, then why change?

Will virtualization change this thinking? We've been having that argument for years. Change is expensive... Both in hardware as well as software, as well as the certain loss in productivity in the near term. Until Corporations (and their stockholders) get out of this quarter to quarter mindset, change will not happen. Until users get out of the mindset that change is bad, change will not happen.

'Og... I discovered a wonderful thing that I have called 'fire'.'
'Magog... Oooh... Let me touch it! Hey, Og, that HURTS! Fire no good!! (bashes Og over head with club) Og banned from tribe!'
 



+1 ^^^ Croc I think I would like to put this up for the best answer


Hab, you are like a broken record, XP 😍 , XP :pt1cable: , XP :bounce: , oh wait, OLD mac :lol: , New mac OS 😴 , :hello: :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom