Why are there 32-bit editions of Windows 8?

Question

64-bit CPUs have been around for about 10 years now, maybe more. Most computers have such CPUs (I don't think 32-bit CPUs are even manufactured anymore).

And there are a lot of computers that have more than 4GB of RAM (especially in the consumer sector), which 32-bit OS-es can't work with (let's ignore PAE for the sake of conversation).

In these conditions, why is there a 32-bit version of Windows 8 ? All editions (regular, Pro, Enterprise and RT) have a 32-bit and a 64-bit version. Aside from the RT edition, having a 32-bit version just doesn't make sense to me.

Shouldn't we completely give up on 32-bit OSes ? Is it still too early ?

Solution 1

As an administrator of Virtual Machines, I don't entirely mind 32bit builds. If you're making a machine that doesn't need over 4GB of memory, then by using a 32bit OS, all your software consumes less memory when it runs. That's because for 64bit builds, the software keeps 64bit address pointers, not 32bit ones. So they end up eating more memory just to do the same thing.

In the case of Windows 8, it may also have a bit do with backwards compatibility, which is a long-running Microsoft thing. Perhaps some older (but pimp) 32bit server would benefit from an upgrade from an older version of windows? It's a lazy case, but so are a lot of Windows admins.

Finally, I'll offer the idle speculation that Windows 8 is a software project evolved out of a long running series. The 32bit branch may be more of a barnacle than a serious product.

Edit:

Perhaps the best answer would be people pay for 32bit Windows 8. Whether or not it makes good sense probably doesn't matter that much to the people doing the selling. I wager if no one bought it, it'd vanish pretty fast.

Edit #2: It occurs to me that there may be some low-end x86 cpus intended for mobile applications that aren't 64bit. I have a Windows 8 based tablet with a little Atom chip, my actual chip is 64bit but the machine runs 32bit windows. Perhaps other similar devices have legitimately 32bit chips??

Solution 2

There's one objective reason that I have not seen mentioned in the other replies yet: drivers.

Even if your CPU is 64 bit, there may some device that you can't live without, for which there are only 32 bit drivers. Without a 32 bit version of Windows, you would be out of luck, since Windows requires drivers of the same bitness as the OS.

But even so, Windows 8 runs quite decently on the higher end 32 bit only CPUs. For example, recently, I installed the 32 bit version of Windows 8 on a Thinkpad T60 after realizing that its 2 GHz Core Duo processor didn't have 64 bit support.

Solution 3

32bit is still required for low spec Tablets like Baytrail ATOM 8" Tablets. They only have 2GB RAM and the 64Bit uses too much RAM and this makes them slower.

Solution 4

The only reason I can surmise is to give Intel or AMD an opportunity to produce a super low-powered processor, which may be easier to get to ARM-like power consumption levels if it's a classic 32-bit processor, for use in a tablet, smartphone or other portable device.

Intel has been trying to break into the phone market for years and this may be Windows trying to help them out.

Shouldn't we completely give up on 32-bit OSes ? Is it still too early ?

Since 64-bit x86 CPU's can run 32-bit code, and since Windows 64-bit versions will run "legacy" 32-bit based programs, there's not much need to worry if you are running relatively modern programs.

32-bit Windows editions did allow the execution of old 16-bit based programs. This capability was dropped in 64-bit versions of Windows starting with Windows XP x64. Software of this nature is very old, though.

View more solutions

Comments

[Outdated Computer Tech]

This question is largely opinion based.

[AdriSolid]

@Sickest I'm sure there is an objective answer out there ;)

[Ramhound]

@RaduMurzea - The logical explanation is there were enough Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 users that were running 32-bit versions of those operating systems ( which were all supported at the time ) and thus Microsoft was required to still support. In other words because they were able to, and it required very little additional work on their end, they decided to still support it.

[AdriSolid]

OK, but if an older server only supports 32-bit OSes, won't it be too old to run an OS like Windows 8 ? Just like you wouldn't install Windows 7 on a 10 year old PC that has just 512 MB RAM ?

[James T Snell]

Not necessarily. There are quite a few combinations of hardware out there to consider. My main answer though is the VM case. It's more efficient when you don't need >4GB of address space. Still, it's been a while since I personally spun up a new 32bit VM. I'm tending towards 64bit now even if I don't need the space so that I can scale up later. But my case is not all cases.

[Daniel B]

It's not so much memory consumption as occupied disk space. All those "duplicate" DLLs sure take some space.

[ganesh]

VMs with 512MB or less might run better on a 32bit OS, but for anything with more address space I think 64 bit is the way to go. (4GB is RAM + virtual address space + PCI address space, so I really would not use 32 bit OS's on machines with more than 512MB memory)

[LawrenceC]

I remember reading articles that Vista was going to be the last 32-bit OS Microsoft would produced, but evidently they did not do that... That was right around the time UMPCs, which would later become netbooks, were starting to gain traction.

[James T Snell]

@ultrasawblade: Sure, but 64bit x86 vs 32 is not universally faster or "better". If you were running a massive pile of tiny programs around the larger address/register space wouldn't make jack. Meanwhile, you've got increase overhead due to the fatter architecture.

[LawrenceC]

Even tiny programs constantly access memory and, if the compiler is any good, will do it less given more registers. RAM is much more slower than CPU registers. It does require the developer recompile their application to be 64-bit; there little, if any, benefit increase from running 32-bit code on 64-bit.

[James T Snell]

@ultrasawblade You may well be correct. I have, however, been told by various geeks I hold in extremely high regards contradictory info. It's an interesting topic no less. My problem is believing random people on the other side of the internet. Have any material you can cite on this? I think it touches a lot not only on fundamental features in the x86 architecture, but also in each specific CPU model & microcode revision, plus the decisions made by compilers and also the OSes in question. Technical details aside, I think the best answer to the OP is because people keep buying 32bit versions.

[Ramhound]

When a critical mass of customers are no longer using 32-bit operating systems support for 32-bit operating systems will be announced by Microsoft. When a critical mass of customers no longer require 32-bit application capability support that also will be retired. This has not happen, your average personal computer, still only comes with 8GB or less of memory.

[Scott Chamberlain]

Often if you need to run 16 bit programs on a 64 bit windows you can try running them in dosbox and they may still work. In fact you can run windows 3.1 inside it.

[specializt]

the statement about 64bit and pointers is untrue - only legacy applications which got ported to 64bit may have these problems, but with a proper, modern framework all of your internal memory management will automatically make use of 64bit words (qwords) in the most efficient way - meaning 32bit data words will be put into one single 64bit word and so on. Welcome to the 21std century, progress is not a bad thing, nor has it negative implications. In fact, a well-written 64bit app may have a SMALLER memory footprint nowadays (with .NET4, for example)

[specializt]

literally all of the available 2ghz CPUs for the T60 are 64bit : thinkwiki.de/T60 ark.intel.com/de/products/27255/…

[Sparky_47]

@specializt Mind slip. Looking back it turns out that my T60 was 1.83 GHz (T2400).

[herve]

I read this answer as "Bay Trail CPUS only support 32bit". I checked and they all support 64bit instructions. The answer is really about the amount of RAM in the device, not the CPU so consider removing the reference to the CPU.

[magicandre1981]

@Oli no, I didn't wrote this. On those devices it simply makes no sense to have 64Bit, because it would use more RAM/disk space. Also those devices only have a 32Bit firmware and booting a 64Bit Windows doesn't work.