Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft plans to completely drop support for x32 in Windows Core 10 OS

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Anne Wilson View Post

    Rumors maybe not ....
    End of an era: Linux distributions will soon stop supporting 32-bit PCs
    https://www.pcworld.com/article/3089...2-bit-pcs.html
    You are aware of the difference between a 32 vs. 64-bit computer (aka CPU architecture) and a 32 vs. 64-bit Operating System, aren't you? Hint: most of you're 32-bit Windows installtions are running on 64-bit PCs/servers for quite some time now.

    So tell me, 1) when did you last purchase a PC with a 32-bit architecture? and 2) how many of those machines are still active?

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Knuth Konrad View Post

      You are aware of the difference between a 32 vs. 64-bit computer (aka CPU architecture) and a 32 vs. 64-bit Operating System, aren't you? Hint: most of you're 32-bit Windows installtions are running on 64-bit PCs/servers for quite some time now.

      So tell me, 1) when did you last purchase a PC with a 32-bit architecture? and 2) how many of those machines are still active?
      Yep, basically, they are saying that you won''t be able to install on a computer with an 80486 or Pentium 4 processor. Haven't seen too many of those in new machines for 15 years. If your computer is less than 10-12 years old, it will almost certainly have a 64 bit processor.

      Comment


      • #63
        To be fair, Anne may simply be unaware of the "multiarch support" built into Ubuntu to prevent chucking years of software into the dumpster. Although *nix might not have the "commercial pressure", most commercially-viable distro developers really aren't so dumb as to abandon 2/3 of their software base on a utopian vision of perfection.

        Comment


        • #64
          "To be fair", she should check dates and references before linking to nonsense. Also, we've heard her opinion before, no need to repeat ... and repeat ... and repeat ...
          Dale

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Raymond Leech View Post
            To be fair, Anne may simply be unaware of the "multiarch support" built into Ubuntu to prevent chucking years of software into the dumpster. Although *nix might not have the "commercial pressure", most commercially-viable distro developers really aren't so dumb as to abandon 2/3 of their software base on a utopian vision of perfection.
            "To be fair", she clearly confused "CPU architecture" with "operating system" and consequently totally misunderstood what her link was actually saying.

            Comment


            • #66
              I have had access to 64 bit for over a year and what I get up to does not tick any of the 64 bit boxes. Having said that when I finish a project I always run in 64 bit to see how it fairs with 32 bit. More often that not there is very little difference between the two from a performance perspective.

              I have just finished an application which does AES, RSA and ECDSA. I have just encrypted a 100MB file and got 892.5ms in 32 bit and 975.7ms in 64 bit; clearing the filecache first on both runs. Now I know that we should not do singleton runs and I normally don't - six to ten is what I normally do. With decent tests there has not been much in it. The 64 bit has a larger binary and it takes much longer to compile. With this project there is no case for 64 bit.

              A lot of folk are marketing 64 bit based upon bragging rights and probably have 32 bit versions which run faster. On the other hand some folk are marketing 64 bit for very good reason where their software has ticked at least one 64 bit box. It is like some folk bragging about their encryption software which has "military strength" becuase AES256 is being used. What load of bull. AES128 is perfectly fine for most people and for sometime to come. Quantum computers for the masses is some way off but even when the security agencies get their hands on them there is some debate whether AES256 has anything to worry about. RSA will be dead in the water, but that is a different story.

              Someone here, in another thread, mentioned that some NHS managers were suggesting that he should up his game with 64 biit. I felt really sorry for the guy. Our NHS has just undergone a security test and everyone of them, I will repeat that, everyone of them failed. Why? Abject ignorance, and probably the same with 64 bit.

              Me: I can let you have a 64 bit version if you want but I must tell you that it runs slower then 32 bit.
              Them: Slower!
              Me: Most of the 64 bit talk is hype. I have a 32 bit copy in the car. I'll go and get it and you can see for youself. While I am out reflect on the fact that I charge more for the 64 bit.
              Them: You charge more!
              Me: Well, yes, it is state of the art, after all. <BIG GRIN>

              Comment

              Working...
              X