Read more.Quote:
"Nobody cares about 32-bit Windows 8.1 anymore," said a company rep.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
"Nobody cares about 32-bit Windows 8.1 anymore," said a company rep.
Fair enough tbh.
It doesn't make sense systems are still being built with 32 bit Windows. Majority of systems have at least 4GB RAM now and 64 bit Windows still runs and supports 32 bit applications so they have a valid point.
DeathByDuke - some users still require hardware which only has 32bit drivers due to legacy nature. 64bit versions of windows are much more strict about things relating to drivers (eg. no unsigned drivers) which can prevent devices working on 64bit versions of Windows. I can think of one very specific (and significant) driver used by many of our customers, and there are plenty of other examples (think legacy printers etc).
For most people, 64bit doesn't cause any issues, and in time my customers with 32bit-only drivers will have to migrate on. In that specific case (ie. my customers), there is no 64bit solution that would allow them to do what they do, so they either have to abandon their workflows, or give up and move on.
Also, note that 64bit Windows has a larger system footprint than 32bit. I am actually puzzled that manufacturers sell netbook-type devices with 32GB storage with 64bit Windows (20+GB footprint) and 2Gb fixed RAM. It'd surely be more sensible to use 32bit Windows (10+GB footprint) to give user a better experience (there's barely enough space to do a major Windows update on those 32GB devices).
The chances of those users being on Windows 8.1 or later in the first place is remote. Plus, if they have hardware that is no longer supported by the manufacturer to the extent that they aren't providing any 64bit Windows drivers at all, it's probably time to start considering replacing that hardware. At this point I'll cue Saracen's explanation of the various bits of his systems that absolutely can't be moved to alternate hardware and that he urgently needs to maintain so he still runs air-gapped Windows XP machines for them. Which actually makes my follow up point for me - that if you have mission critical hardware that requires a particular environment it's still possible to obtain the relevant software to maintain that environment. And if you're not technically capable of setting up and maintaining a separate legacy environment (or getting someone else to do it for you), then you need to seriously consider whether using business-critical legacy systems that you can't support is really a good idea... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Irien
64bit versions of windows are much more strict about things relating to drivers (eg. no unsigned drivers) which can prevent devices working on 64bit versions of Windows. I can think of one very specific (and significant) driver used by many of our customers, and there are plenty of other examples (think legacy printers etc).
Many don't. My Toshy click mini is 32-bit. The latest ASUS Transformer is 32-bit. However, worth remembering that a lot of work has gone into improving system compression algorithms though so a compressed 64bit install really isn't all that big, comparatively. I've just had a quick check of the size of Windows folder on various devices, and my heavily used primary home laptop is just over 20GB, my fairly fresh Win 10 Enterprise 64-bit VM is only 12GB, and my Toshy is 10GB compressed to 6.5GB. So it looks like the folder size almost certainly increases with use (and presumably number of downloaded updates) - kind of wish I'd checked the folder size on the Toshy when it was new... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Irien
Besides, 64-bit Windows will run 32-bit programs - the reverse isn't true. Do you want to be the manufacturer who deals with complaints that their Windows laptop won't run Windows software? I wouldn't. It only takes one software company, a year down the line, to decide it's only going to issue an x64 version of its software...
Scaryjim - just to clarify, I don't have a problem with AMD dropping 8.1 32bit support - as you say, it's a pretty insignificant combination anyway. I was merely explaining why 32bit systems still exist and may be needed.
Good point about 64bit software, although I'd suggest that the 2GB of unexpandable ram on many of those devices would be a problem before 64bit apps, but I get your point. For what its worth, the netbook I had in mind when I wrote was a current Asus Transformer model, but it sounds like it varies with model. This thing had trouble updating to Anniversary Edition out of the box!
But how many such devices have an AMD GPU?Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
I'm guessing there are a few, or AMD wouldn't support Windows 10 and Windows 7 32 bit.
You rang?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaryjim
There are several highly valid reasons for me maintaining those air-gapped systems, not least of which is would YOU want to pay for about 10 new PCs, plus OS licences, plus software upgrade costs, plus replacing both legacy hardware and software, for no productivity gain?
It's my experience that those that believe such systems, that are and have been doing their jobs perfectly well for years, need to be replaced just because the OS is out of date and/or unsupported, either have no experience of running their own business, or aren't the ones out of whose pocket the money to do it will come. Or both.
That said, the whole point of having legacy systems frozen on XP is that what happens with Win8.1, or on what AMD support or don't support, has absolutely zero impact on me. I haven't upgraded anything on those systems for years, because to do so means fixing something that ain't broke. The business case for this strategy is utterly unassailable in my circumstances. But I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to anyone else .... unless their circumstances justified it, too.
Win 8.1? Pah, don't care. :D
MS lost me at W7.
I think my E350 based laptop fell off the mainline support list years ago thanks to its use of VLIW graphics rather than GCN, so would have been on the "Legacy" driver even on W10. That was originally a W7 machine but I can imagine a lot of 8.1 machines being in the same boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by ET3D
Nice to have a reliable sounding board, isn't it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Yeah, that was pretty much my point. There's a strong argument that new OSes don't need to have 32-bit versions, because legacy systems requiring 32-bit support are probably better running on legacy OSes anyway. Any hardware that is currently properly supported by the manufacturer should have a 64 bit Windows driver. If the hardware is no longer properly supported by the vendor/manufacturer, then you really need to either put your own legacy support arrangements in place (as you do), or seek an alternative to that hardware. Neither of which should require a 32 bit version of the latest OS...Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
As someone who used Vista 32bit for long enough to become traumatized by system performance and lack of security when connected to the Web, I would love to know why 7 was your stop to get off the bus and not Vista or 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I *think* he means after Windows 7.Quote:
Originally Posted by OzaronAs someone who used Vista 32bit for long enough to become traumatized by system performance and lack of security when connected to the Web, I would love to know why 7 was your stop to get off the bus and not Vista or 8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
It also a little strange that they have only drop support for Windows 8.1, they are conitinuing support for Windows 7 & 10 32bit. You would have thought it actually wouldn't be massively difficult to adapt the code for Windows 8.1.
Now THAT I completely agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Eithout going into exhaustive detail, some of the driven hardware was pretty expensive (many thousands) and in a couple of cases, the manufacturer no longer exists. On-going support is therefore nil, and new versions not coming.
So .... the business options are to spend the time finding and checking out alternative kit from new suppliers, then buy new (expensive) hardware and new PC, in order to be able to run new OS, or stick the the stone-age stuff.
It's a pretty simply investment-type decision .... cost versus ROI. The existing kit works, and does the job, for now at least, and the kit is all long written down. To replace it, there either has to be a heck of a reduction in running costs, producing enough of an increased margin to justify the capital cost, or the new kit has to offer new business opportunities sufficient to make the expenditure worthwhile. The existing kit won't last indefinitely, and while I've enough old PCs and bits of PCs, and redundancy, to keep them running for quite a while, if the hardware it's driving ever breaks down, it's highly doubtful if I'd bother to replace it at all. But meantime .... make hay while it lasts. :D
To clarify, I use Win7. It's after that that MS lost me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozaron
Without going over it again, it more or less started with the Start button thing, supposedly mandatory MUI interface, etc AND the remarks MS execs made, which suggested a direction of travel for MS products I was not then and never will go along with.
That is ...
Win7 = OK.
Win8 = rot set in, got me looking at Linux.
Win10 = Last straw, c ya MS, hello Linux.
Personally the changes arriving with original version Windows 8 made me feel ill, though for me it was the MUI that was particularly offputting. Thanks for clarifying this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I'm not yet convinced I want to so much as touch Linux, (not from an ideals standpoint - having a non-entity behind the OS is A-OK compared to a corporation) because at least this devil I know, and can manipulate to a meaningful degree. Besides, last thing anyone needs in life is to deal with Oracle Linux at work and any other kind of Linux at home. My patience is sadly not a bottomless well.