Why is there Windows 7 32-bit? PC's need more RAM.

I'm trying to understand why there will be a Windows 7 32-bit? I thought Microsoft would actually do something beneficial with their tyranny. System RAM is so inexpensive now, and PC's can really benefit from more than 3GB.

Having 64-bit only would draw the definitive line between much older hardware technology and new, and would force developers to concentrate on 64-bit drivers instead of 32-bit. Now we will probably end up with the same driver support debacle for 64-bit as there was with the release of Vista.

Additionally, Microsoft was so adamant about implementing DRM into their software that it made older hardware obsolete anyhow.

I'd like to hear constructive thoughts on this, that maybe I'm not understanding (which isn't a stretch by any mean).

 

there is not full support for 64 bit os. until that happens there will always be a 32 bit for better compatibility

 

You'll be surprised how many programs don't have full 64 bit support. Flash anyone?

 

People with none 64-bit cpu's (netbook owners, first gen Core Duo).

 

I agree with the OP, we abandoned 8 bit applications when we made Windows 2000 and little fuss was made... how many people still regularly need 16 bit applications? That is all that we would lose going from X86 to X64.
People have this terrible misconception that 32 bit applications will not run under an X64 environment. This is true for an I64 environment (true 64 bit, Itanium) but not true from a processor like the Core 2 Duo or Athlon 64 that will run 64 and 32 bit applications with ease. If you can install a 32 bit OS on your system, and you can install a 64 bit OS, then your 64 bit OS will run the 32 bit OS without problems. People who have problems running applications in Vista X64 do not have this issue as a result of the 64 bit architecture - they would have just as little luck in Vista X86 (okay, there are a few exceptions. Beyond that, it's all on what Jayayess is saying - people with old hardware will be unable to put the new operating system on their old equipment. I say why? If your computer does not support 64 bit it was made before Vista even came out. Keep XP on that thing! You SERIOUSLY do not want to be putting an OS on that came out 6+ years later. Talk about painful. As for netbooks, I guess some people want Windows on them for farmiliarity (and battery life) so I understand that - but why can't MS keep selling an old product? That's pure profits there if they are no longer maintaining it but still selling it. Even if that's not an option for whatever reason, how about a Windows 7 FLP, only available in 32 bit and the only edition available in 32 bit.

ApplUsr is right that until there is a push to 64 bit it will not be widely adopted - Microsoft has this power, yet are shooting themselves in the foot by not making it.


Also sidenote: the idea that Vista X64 has driver problems is a MYTH MYTH MYTH MYTH that has spread across the internet like a wildfire. In order to get your driver Microsoft certified for 32 bit Vista, you must ALSO provide a 64 bit version of the driver. (any reputable company will get their drivers certified - Intel, nVidia, AMD/ATI, SigmaTel, Realtek, Broadcom, and many many others). In rare cases you will have a problem, but those people know who they are already and chances are, those people are still using a Legacy OS such as Windows 9x or Windows 2000.

 

Don't worry, Windows 8 will be 64-bit only.

 

I own a netbook, and expect no reason to run 64-bit apps. XP or Vista will suffice just fine. Albeit, it seems Windows 7 runs much more smoothly and executes better than Vista on the netbooks, but that's just Vista bloat.

Also, with the whole DRM thing and Vista, they had no qualms about obsoleting people's monitors, so I don't see how this is different.

For most consumer's to upgrade to a new OS, it's usually installed on the next PC they buy anyhow, and the same OS stays there until they get another PC. Unless there's a very compelling reason to do so, most people won't want to bother with an OS install themselves.

To Hep! I owned Vista 64-bit on my desktop from day one, and it was nothing but a disaster. Perhaps it was same with 32-bit, I don't know. All I know is it took over a year to get drivers (video, sound, motherboard) that would let me play the games I wanted. But either way, thanks for all your added points to my initial question.

 

64-bit is kind of like IPv6 - its the next thing, but the benefits of switching over do not yet outweigh the trouble of switching over.
The 3.25GB limitation of 32bit Windows will eventually become a hindrance to most users and it will then be fashionable to switch over to 64bit - same thing happened in the change from 16bit to 32bit.

Also, most Netbooks use Atom processors which are 32bit-only.

 

?

The neat trick with x64 is that since the hardware itself is in fact a full x86 core with x64 bolted on, whether the app is 32-bit or 64-bit doesn't matter in most cases. For your Flash example, I'll note that while Flash is not 64-bit for Windows (yet), it has run on 32-bit browsers on 64-bit OS's since day one. Heck, Windows x64 even ships with 32-bit IE as the default browser, mainly for the reason of plugins. Flash doesn't *need* to be a 64-bit app.

 

Is Adobe making a 64-bit version?

 

If you limit it to 64bit only then you eliminate a LARGE user base that would pay money to upgrade their xp computers from about 3 or 4 years ago that have nothing wrong with them. 2gb ram + a 32bit P4 is plenty for many people still.

 

They recently released a test version of Flash x64 for Linux. I tried it out briefly and it ran fairly well. It's more a compatibility thing in Linux apparently.

 

Exactly. Not to mention the original Core Duo processors... which can run Vista or 7 fine but are not 64-bit.

And I wonder about the netbook CPUs like Atom... or those VIA CPUs... are those 64-bit capable?

Also, some people have old peripherals that don't have 64-bit drivers. And some companies I'm sure have legacy software that still uses 16-bit code and won't run on 64-bit Windows.

 

My guess is that it has little to do with the retail/home market, and it's more about the corporate/enterprise market. That market (which is essential to Microsoft) is more likely to still have (a) an installed base of non-64-bit hardware, and (b) the likelihood of using some homegrown proprietary software that might not be 64-bit compatible.

Microsoft wants to get this OS on the corporate desktop, since they failed in that regard with Vista. Making a 32-bit version makes that more likely to happen.

 

we're quite happy to be able to install win7 on age old p4, too. it performs well and looks great. same for netbooks.

not every cpu can handle 64bit. but any of those 32bit only can handle win7. that's a good reason to support a 32bit version. xp will be declared dead soon after win7 gets released. so it should be possible to upgrade old hw to win7.

and i only recently got 64bit drivers for my dj hardware. so yes, there are still a lot of issues with 64bit. day by day, they get less.

 

Again, I'm failing to understand the logic. Vista made lots of hardware obsolete due to incorporated DRM (mainly monitors and video cards) and they didn't care then, why should they care or want it to run on four or five year old hardware?

I understand the corporate argument, but consumer's no. Make an enterprise version then for those that need 32 bit. First generation netbook Atom CPU's are not 64-bit capable, but the next gen Atom's are, as well are the initial nettop Atom's (200 and 300 series).

Granted, with XP, 2GB is more than sufficient for most GP tasks and gaming. With Vista 3GB is almost required, but that's mainly due to Vista's bloat. If they streamline Seven more, then maybe only 2 or 3GB is all that is required.

 

I'd say 4GB minimum for Vista... but Vista is not that bloated, it just has much better memory management and application then XP.

 

The fact that x86 Windows is fully capable of running x86 software side by side with x64 software is simply amazing IMO. Its hard to sell any OS without backwards compatibility.

But that wasn't my point.

He hit it right on the head. You can target a larger audience and make more money.

 

But a lot of enterprises don't actually use Windows Server. My dad works at a large enterprise that uses Windows XP Professional on their desktop computers, and either an IBM or GNU/Linux OS elsewhere. Most universities that I know of use XP Professional. I can't recall seeing a Windows Server version anywhere other than when I put it on a virtual machine. If I'd seen any corporate machines running Vista, I suppose it would be possible it was Vista Enterprise, but the only Windows versions I ever see are XP, 2000, and 98.

Vista is actually fine with 2 GB for most stuff (obviously it varies), but even 3 GB is still perfectly fine for 32-bit. And until a company needs more than 3.5 GB of RAM, backwards compatibility will probably come first. As for the DRM thing, wasn't that only with streaming high-definition video? The companies that are into that probably either update their monitors regularly, or are the movie studios that support DRM in the first place (let's be honest, it's not Microsoft who really pushes DRM). Either that or they use Mac OS.

On the consumer front, it probably is the Core Duo/P4 upgrades that's targeted. I'm quite surprised Atom isn't all 64-bit, really - AMD's been on 64-bit for 5.5 years already. 32-bit probably will run lighter than 64-bit, though, so it may be necessary to have 32-bit to supplant XP on netbooks, even if Atom was all 64-bit.

 

Mind if I ask why? I used Vista Business with 1.5GB for a year and a half quite comfortably. I now use 3GB and don't feel like I'm limited at all. If anything, it's hard drives that slow things down.

 

Up until 2 days ago, all 4 laptops in my house were running 2Gb of RAM in Vista and having no issues whatsoever. The only reason that I upgraded to 4Gb was that DDR2 prices are going to increase with the launch of DDR3. Better to spend $70 now than $150 later.

The DRM in Vista pretty much only affects playing Blu-Ray movies. How many people will be doing that on 5 year old PC's?

There is no reason to make P4's, Pentium-D's and Core Duos and Solos obsolete, while they have plenty of power to run 7. Now, I wouldn't put 7 on an original 2.0Ghz P4, but the newer 3Ghz and greater models with HT would handle 7 just fine.

Oh, and as far as the memory arguement goes, 7 runs alright on 1Gb of RAM, which is pretty far off of the 3.5Gb cap of 32bit.

Greg

 

I'm glad I'm not the only that miss understood the whole DRM that came with Vista. It doesn't make a lot of hardware obsolete. Rather a more accurate term is it makes some newer video streams incompatible with existing video hardware. So its a subset of what you believed was true.

 

not true. DRM never made any old hw obsolente.

why aritificially limit a windows to 64bit, making it unusable for all the well working 32bit systems right now that can't go to 64bit?

vista works great with 2gb, and more memory == better is not because of some "bloat" of vista.
win7 works great with 1gb of ram on a p4. why shouldn't people be able to use it on such systems, then? the codebase is already there for 32bit and 64bit.

i have two questions for you:
1)
why do you think one needs that much ram while it's proven to not be true? 1gb+ is good for both xp and win7, 2gb+ is great for vista. more ram == better, but not required at all.

most users don't change what they do with pc's compared to what they've done with them years ago. they don't suddenly need 4gb+ ram.

2)
why artifially limit win7 to 64bit while the world isn't exactly there yet? the lowest end of the new atoms are 32bit only. p4 and p3 (both capable to run win7) are 32bit only. a fast cpu is not really needed for the os to work well. enough ram (see question 1) + a fast harddrive make much more difference.

my gf uses itunes and firefox, for her, a 32bit system is more than enough and will always be. but being able to install win7 for her as a "uh shiny" and for me as a "thanks god we have a more modern, stable, and save system than crappy xp" os to manage is an advantage.

 

xpx64 driver problems are not a myth i and that is why i am no longer running it it searched for an contexant ac97 audio driver for 3 weeks and could never find one i even deployed driver genuis it did find an ati driver that made my sound work ok but it still popped and cracked constantly and there were a few other drivers i dont remember them off the top of my head but my expeirence with xpx64 was terrible i guess thats why it was an oem release only. i think we are still about 2-3 years from getting the 64bit archetexture straight with most laptops there is no need for because very few will hold over 4gb of ram and from what i have seen there isnt really a reason to have a 64bit os unless u are using over 4gb of ram (i know 32 only see 3.5) and 95% of pc users dont have over 4gb of ram because u just dont need anymore right now

 

Awesome, you managed to talk about XP X64's driver problems which I am right alongside you on (though they're much better now than it was on release).
Notice how I was describing Vista X64.

 

Yes, X64 was nearly unusable at release with the shoddy driver support, and you don't know how much UAC pissed me off, but I digress. I guess that put a bad taste in my mouth more than anything. I had Vista almost on day one of release, excited to have 64bit and actually able to use a full 4GB RAM.

After several weeks of cursing and frustration, I dual-booted to XP, and haven't touched Vista since, except for some benchmarking.

 

If PC's need more RAM maybe the question should be why does W7 32bit not support more than 4GB or does it?

 

Duh, the majority don't need more RAM. It's only the minority (heavy multitaskers, gamers, media creators) that would need more RAM.

Do you honestly need 4GB to browse the web and listen to music?

No.

 

Then my question for you would have to be "Why don't you read up on the limitations of 32 bit addressing schemes?"

 

and from that article

If you look at this link http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx you will see that since XP SP2 the MS 32bit OSes such as XP and it would seem Vista, only support 4GB of physical address space and hence the problems with utilizing 4GB of RAM on those systems. Please also note that some of the 32bit server versions support more than 4GB of RAM.

Now here is an interesting thought, if I run my system with W7 64bit beta and 4GB of RAM I get just about the full 4GB for use but end up with about 3.1GB of RAM for my own applications once the OS has taken what it needs to run the system. With XP SP1 I also get just about the full 4GB for use and after the OS has taken what it needs I end up with about 3.7GB for my own applications. So in this instance I actually have more memory available to my own applications with a 32bit OS than with a 64bit OS.

 

That's not from the article, that's from a comment on the article.
And while PAE allows you to address more than 4GB of memory, that does not mean just system memory. PAE doesn't magically allow you to use 4GB of RAM in a 32 bit OS.

Could you elaborate on that last part though...?
Are you talking about Vista X64 vs XP SP1 memory used on boot?

 

It is from the article. Read it again, just below the first 32bit calculation in the dotted box, way before any comments!

I'll try and elaborate the last part

I was talking about running each system with drivers installed and how much memory was available for use once the system was run up and logged on to.

1. Windows 7 Beta 64Bit with 4GB of installed memory.
2. Windows XP SP1 32bit with 4GB of installed memory.

With Windows 7 Beta 64Bit I can use all of the 4GB (minus about 4MB)
With PAE enabled on XP SP1 I can use all of the 4GB (minus about 4MB)

In other words I can access the same amount of memory in both OSes.

Now the OS itself needs too run on some of that RAM, it can not run on just thin air, so some of that 4GBs is taken up by the OS itself. The XP OS uses a lot less resources than Windows 7 OS so that means more memory is left for me with XP than Windows 7.

I am not trying to suggest to use XP SP1 but show that it is possible to use all 4GB with a 32bit OS.

It seems MS decided to limit the amount of physical address space in XP SP2/3 and Vista 32bit to 4GB. This means all the hardware memory mapped addresses end up usually taking a chunk out of that space, lets say for example 1GB. This leaves only 3GB of address space for RAM hence only 3GB of RAM available. Then the OS itself needs RAM to run, say for example 1GB, which will leave only 2GB for your personal applications.

XP SP1 with PAE is not limited to 4GB of physical address space and can therefore separate the address space for hardware memory mapped devices from the 4GB of RAM address space resulting in the full 4GB of RAM being accessible.


If I haven't confused you already I would just like to add

AFAIK
XP SP1 is limited to a max of 4GB RAM (OS limitation).
The 4GB physical address space for XP SP2/3 and Vista 32bit is an OS limitation.
With over 4GB supported on a 32bit system you would still be limited to <4GB per application due to 32bit addressing.


Since 32bit systems seem to be staying around for a while I thought it might have been nice if W7 32bit supported more than 4GB of memory or at least got rid of the 4GB physical address space limit.

 

The big reason MS implemented the hard 4GB limit for the workstation 32-bit OS's is because PAE is a kludge. Certain apps and drivers need to specifically understand and support PAE, and the chance your webcam or game will properly support it is not particularly high. Server-side stuff on the other hand tends to be written more to PAE standards.

Nevermind that PAE does inflict a performance penalty which, depending on how it's used, can be quite noticeable.

 

Problematic drivers and applications could be fixed right, but not worth the effort.

I did notice the webcam suffered under PAE. I didn't notice any penalty performance at all although there is one, graphic benchmarking gave the same results for PAE as non-PAE. Overall penalties appeared to be negligible for me.

After a bit more thought about this I probably shouldn't have posted the question in the first place as implementing PAE other than to allow DEP just isn't going to happen for 32bit W7.