# Dolphin Emulator dropping 32-bit support, focuses on 64-bit



## Deleted-236924 (May 20, 2014)

With the 32-bit architecture falling behind and becoming less and less prevalent, certain _bits_ of software are bound to drop support for it eventually.

This is what the Dolphin Emulator team did today, by dropping support for the 32-bit builds.

It's not just because 32-bit is becoming less common, however; part of the reasoning behind this decision was that the latest Microsoft Visual Studio Compiler doesn't support Windows XP. Unfortunately for XP, he's the last sibling of the Windows family to be primarily 32-bit, while his younger brothers Vista, 7 and 8 are designed for 64-bit. Along with 32-bits based processors dying out and 64-bit ones becoming more and more prevalent (since 2003, in fact), every day there are more reasons to leave 32-bit behind.



> Ten years ago Dolphin was a very limited program designed to run in only one environment. It was a 32-bit Windows application that required Direct3D 9 with no alternatives. A lot of things have changed since then as Dolphin has expanded its goals. The emulator has become much more robust over time with support added for 64-bit Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, and even Android phones and tablets!
> 
> Sometimes though, changes must be made. Some choices require months of preparation, discussion, examination, while others are inevitable. Maintaining features is a balance between cost and reward. The cost being development time, maintenance, debugging, bandwidth, money and more, with the reward being a better, cleaner experience for our users. The reward was obvious for 4.0.
> 
> ...



 Source
 Discussion on Dolphin Emulator forums

Considering that 32-bit machines really weren't powerful enough to run Dolphin at a playable rate and that only 7.8% of the downloads for last April/May were 32-bit Windows, I say that this isn't a bad move if it allows them to spend more time perfecting the 64-bit build.


----------



## VMM (May 20, 2014)

That's fantastic! I wish other developers follow this, that way we'll have more optimized support to 64 bit applications.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

Good, because 32-bit OSes are pretty much deprecated and/or not of much use really anymore.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 20, 2014)

Meh, no complaints from me. Good to see things are starting to drop 32-bit altogether.


----------



## Gahars (May 20, 2014)

It was inevitable. Still, I hope nobody's 32-bitter about this.


----------



## Taleweaver (May 20, 2014)

I'm one of those 7.8%. The reason is that I was fiddling with a very low-end machine. The thing wasn't fast enough to properly run dolphin in the first place. A bit of a pity, but it's certainly the right decision.

But...I suppose that new is going to be about later today (depending on timezone)? I just noticed there still being a x86 windows version submitted five hours ago.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

Taleweaver said:


> I'm one of those 7.8%. The reason is that I was fiddling with a very low-end machine. The thing wasn't fast enough to properly run dolphin in the first place. A bit of a pity, but it's certainly the right decision.
> 
> But...I suppose that new is going to be about later today (depending on timezone)? I just noticed there still being a x86 windows version submitted five hours ago.


 

I believe that was the last one, as the buildbot (or whatever it is they used to build the GIT revisions) is no longer being used. As for myself, I fear that Dolphin will become unusable on my current desktop.


----------



## Apache Thunder (May 20, 2014)

I have no issues with this. I've been using a 64-bit machine with 6GB of ram for almost 2 years and prior to that machine I had a 64 bit version of XP running on an old PC. So it's been a LONG time since I've worked with a 32-bit OS. I think the only machine I installed 32-bit version of Win7 on was my mothers PC in the bedroom. Mainly because it's an old socket 775 motherboard and only has 2GB of ram installed. It does support running 64-bit OSes though but it's certainly not a machine Dolphin would have worked with. 

I say this is a good thing. They won't have to keep track of two different builds now and can just focus on making the single 64bit build better.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

Apache Thunder said:


> I have no issues with this. I've been using a 64-bit machine with 6GB of ram for almost 2 years and prior to that machine I had a 64 bit version of XP running on an old PC. So it's been a LONG time since I've worked with a 32-bit OS. I think the only machine I installed 32-bit version of Win7 on was my mothers PC in the bedroom. Mainly because it's an old socket 775 motherboard and only has 2GB of ram installed. It does support running 64-bit OSes though but it's certainly not a machine Dolphin would have worked with.
> 
> I say this is a good thing. They won't have to keep track of two different builds now and can just focus on making the single 64bit build better.


 

Such as tweaking the JIT core and help with speed improvement


----------



## Apache Thunder (May 20, 2014)

Indeed.

I remember back when 64-bit use to be a niche market. But now it's finally getting to be the reverse. Just about all modern machines support RAM capacities well about the 3.5GB barrier of the 32-bit architecture.

Coupled with OEM companies shipping a 64-bit OS on most of their machines now, 32-bit has become the niche obscure OS that people don't worry about supporting as much. Besides even on slightly older machines, a 64-bit OS will run fine on machines using less then 4GB of ram, so there's really no reason to use 32-bit os anymore unless you got old hardware that doesn't have 32-bit drivers, but the market of people who keep 32-bit for that reason is quite small.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

Apache Thunder said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I remember back when 64-bit use to be a niche market. But now it's finally getting to be the reverse. Just about all modern machines support RAM capacities well about the 3.5GB barrier of the 32-bit architecture.
> 
> Coupled with OEM companies shipping a 64-bit OS on most of their machines now, 32-bit has become the niche obscure OS that people don't worry about supporting as much. Besides even on slightly older machines, a 64-bit OS will run fine on machines using less then 4GB of ram, so there's really no reason to use 32-bit os anymore unless you got old hardware that doesn't have 32-bit drivers, but the market of people who keep 32-bit for that reason is quite small.


 

You got that right. I haven't used a 32-bit OS in a long time, not since I switched over to Windows 7 Pro anyways. My machine can run most games on Dolphin very well, at least, for the time being. I hope we don't get to the point where the requirements are such that people have to get a Core i7 Extreme or a dodeca-core CPU with 32 GB DDR4 SDRAM


----------



## Apache Thunder (May 20, 2014)

Lol. I have an i7 965 Extreme Edition Quad Core. Even though it's a first generation i7, it's still pretty kickass, so I'm probably set in terms of future Dolphin builds. The graphics card is the only weak point in my system and I can still upgrade that in the future and my motherboard can go up to 24GB of RAM if needed.


----------



## KingVamp (May 20, 2014)

While I think it's still a shame even if I'm not part of that 7.8% (), it's understandable. Time for 128-bit!


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

Apache Thunder said:


> Lol. I have an i7 965 Extreme Edition Quad Core. Even though it's a first generation i7, it's still pretty kickass, so I'm probably set in terms of future Dolphin builds. The graphics card is the only weak point in my system and I can still upgrade that in the future and my motherboard can go up to 24GB of RAM if needed.


 

My motherboard can still upgrade to ridiculous amounts of RAM and a Core i7, but kinda hard to upgrade without a source of revenue   I'm just hoping that speed changes won't be drastic to the point of near Bsnes levels.


----------



## futaris (May 20, 2014)

Well, it does run on armv7 (32-bit). Dolphin/ARM doesn't use 64 bit on armv8 yet...


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2014)

Though not the first emulator to head down this path it might well be the first non debug/accuracy focused one to do so.

I have installed 32bit W7 on very 64bit capable machines but that is usually for legacy software or hardware reasons (quite a few very nice printers can be made to work, possibly by crowbarring Vista drivers in there, on 32 bit 7 where there is no chance of 64 bit).


----------



## Jayro (May 20, 2014)

This is a dumb decision. Most people I know run Windows 7 32-bit, me included. Sometimes there are no 64-bit drivers for our hardware. -.-


----------



## FAST6191 (May 20, 2014)

Give or take printers and industry specific stuff if you are limited by hardware then chances are your hardware is at best on the "can just about work" side of things anyway. Likewise according to the above it seems to be actual work for them to maintain a 32 bit build and things are demonstrably improved by going to 64, granted it seems to be the difference be 50fps and 60 something in the worst case and undetectable and undetectable to the human eye in better cases. However if that extra can be given over to filters then I would say go for it.


----------



## Oxybelis (May 20, 2014)

JayRo said:


> This is a dumb decision. Most people I know run Windows 7 32-bit, me included. Sometimes there are no 64-bit drivers for our hardware. -.-


 I think you just did not try to search.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (May 20, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> Likewise according to the above it seems to be actual work for them to maintain a 32 bit build and things are demonstrably improved by going to 64, granted it seems to be the difference be 50fps and 60 something in the worst case and undetectable and undetectable to the human eye in better cases. However if that extra can be given over to filters then I would say go for it.


Maybe, but when games don't run at 60fps, it's not like most PC games where it does frame skipping, it causes actual slowdown (and, often, sound choppy-ness.)
I do believe there's a frame skipping option somewhere though.


----------



## Satangel (May 20, 2014)

JayRo said:


> This is a dumb decision. Most people I know run Windows 7 32-bit, me included. Sometimes there are no 64-bit drivers for our hardware. -.-


 
Do most people you know Dolphin? Do they even know what an emulator is?
Dolphin users are a very niche group, going 64bit is understandable.


----------



## DinohScene (May 20, 2014)

I gots a lappy with a 32 bit version of Win 7 installed.
I'll continue to use a 32 bit installation for various things but when I got enough money, 64 bits it'll also be for me.

Hope that Dolphin will get better and better by dropping 32 bits.


----------



## Sakitoshi (May 20, 2014)

Apache Thunder said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I remember back when 64-bit use to be a niche market. But now it's finally getting to be the reverse. Just about all modern machines support RAM capacities well about the 3.5GB barrier of the 32-bit architecture.


That is a false believing, 32bit processors can address more than 4GB ram, the 3.5GB was a barrier Microsoft put in Windows XP SP2, the PAE was limited to maintain compatibility with old drivers that had problems but can support up to 64GB of ram as shows Windows Server 2008 Datacenter 32bits(where they corrected the driver issue I suppose). if you can get a hold of a release version of Windows XP try instaling it on a virtual machine and give it more than 4GB of ram and you'll see.
the performance of Dolphin still will be terrible compared to 64bits of course.



Apache Thunder said:


> Coupled with OEM companies shipping a 64-bit OS on most of their machines now, 32-bit has become the niche obscure OS that people don't worry about supporting as much. Besides even on slightly older machines, a 64-bit OS will run fine on machines using less then 4GB of ram, so there's really no reason to use 32-bit os anymore unless you got old hardware that doesn't have 32-bit drivers, but the market of people who keep 32-bit for that reason is quite small.


 
Some notebooks still ships with Windows Starter edition(that is 32bits only) even when are fully capable of run a better version, mainly to lower costs in licenses. just need to beware of that monstrosity that is Windows Starter, but again, those notebooks aren't capable of running Dolphin at decent speeds so... whatever. I'm just arguing for the love to argue.


----------



## Flame (May 20, 2014)

meh... my windows is 64bit my Ubuntu is 64bit...

and my future build PC will be 64bit...



now only Firefox did 64bit


----------



## Sakitoshi (May 20, 2014)

oohh wait, I just realized....
Android is 32bits only ;;;;O;;;;
at the moment at least.


----------



## Kayot (May 20, 2014)

I remember two months ago when they dropped DX9 support. I was ok with it since I'm already using Win7x64 and a 460GTX. What bothered me was a statement in the article, "Those of you with a Titan card will be fine." Well no %*&#, it's a 1200$ card. I'd be fine with pretty much every game if I had a Titan card. On the Forums they suggested upgrading from a 3570K to the new Intel and then overclocking it. My fear is that Dolphin will start requiring super high end gear. It's Everquest all over again. If my cleric can't solo a dragon then I'm apparently not end game raid worthy.

I also think I should point out that it's been a whole month since Microsoft dropped XP support. The article makes it seem like ages. Is this what I have to look forward to in regards to Windows 7?

If it helps Dolphin, I guess it's a good thing. I meet the current requirements and I own a Wii so if things get crazy in a few months, I'm fine.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 20, 2014)

Great. I am 64 bit user for 6 years.


----------



## Arras (May 20, 2014)

Kayot said:


> I remember two months ago when they dropped DX9 support. I was ok with it since I'm already using Win7x64 and a 460GTX. What bothered me was a statement in the article, "Those of you with a Titan card will be fine." Well no %*&#, it's a 1200$ card. I'd be fine with pretty much every game if I had a Titan card. On the Forums they suggested upgrading from a 3570K to the new Intel and then overclocking it. My fear is that Dolphin will start requiring super high end gear. It's Everquest all over again. If my cleric can't solo a dragon then I'm apparently not end game raid worthy.
> 
> I also think I should point out that it's been a whole month since Microsoft dropped XP support. The article makes it seem like ages. Is this what I have to look forward to in regards to Windows 7?
> 
> If it helps Dolphin, I guess it's a good thing. I meet the current requirements and I own a Wii so if things get crazy in a few months, I'm fine.


It's not like old versions will suddenly stop working, even if they drop support for something, you can always install the latest working version.


----------



## nl255 (May 20, 2014)

Flame said:


> meh... my windows is 64bit my Ubuntu is 64bit...
> 
> and my future build PC will be 64bit...
> 
> ...


 
That is what Waterfox or PaleMoon are for.


----------



## Flame (May 20, 2014)

nl255 said:


> That is what Waterfox or PaleMoon are for.


 
I use Firefox on Ubuntu and chrome on windows... so i would like a official support.


----------



## gamefan5 (May 20, 2014)

great news. 64 bit user here for a hefty long time


----------



## Arras (May 20, 2014)

Flame said:


> I use Firefox on Ubuntu and chrome on windows... so i would like a official support.


There's not much point in a 64-bit Firefox really. You might get some tiny performance boosts but nothing noticable, the only net difference would be that it uses a bit more RAM.


----------



## Qtis (May 20, 2014)

Dropping legacy support and focusing on the future is a good idea in general. While it may hurt some users at the present, they too will benefit from the focused resources when the users upgrade their machines. 32-bit OSs aren't going to be around for that long, especially in the consumer market for new machines (yes, the starter version is apparently 32-bit, but I wonder for how long..).


----------



## nukeboy95 (May 20, 2014)

Sigh, I knew accidently selecting 32bit would bit me in the ass. Welp time to upgrade.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (May 20, 2014)

Sakitoshi said:


> oohh wait, I just realized....
> Android is 32bits only ;;;;O;;;;
> at the moment at least.


 
They are dropping support for 32-bit in x86 architectures. I'm sure 32-bit Android support won't be dropped...


----------



## Eity (May 20, 2014)

Oh well, it only means that I would use older builds. I have 64-bit processor from about 2007 but... I still using WinXP. Simply because I hate any later version of Windows.


----------



## nl255 (May 20, 2014)

nukeboy95 said:


> Sigh, I knew accidently selecting 32bit would bit me in the ass. Welp time to upgrade.


 
Yep, backup everything, reformat, reinstall the OS, reinstall every app, copy the data you want back manually, and finally run every app and go into the settings to configure them one at a time. (some people will say to just restore your local/remote appdata folders but that can cause problems, best to manually copy things like bookmarks and such back).


----------



## nukeboy95 (May 20, 2014)

nl255 said:


> Yep, backup everything, reformat, reinstall the OS, reinstall every app, copy the data you want back manually, and finally run every app and go into the settings to configure them one at a time. (some people will say to just restore your local/remote appdata folders but that can cause problems, best to manually copy things like bookmarks and such back).


 
i was just going to use this, http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/32-bit-and-64-bit-windows# 





Eity said:


> Oh well, it only means that I would use older builds. I have 64-bit processor from about 2007 but... I still using WinXP. Simply because I hate any later version of Windows.


 
Windows 7 is not that bad, i actually like it much more then XP.
Its vista and 8 that is bad


----------



## KingVamp (May 20, 2014)

Well, it looks like Android is going to be 64-bit in a ~year anyway.


----------



## WaryLouka (May 20, 2014)

Cool, but sadly my computer is from 2003 so I can't switch to 64-bit yet.

I'm running on Linux, and it's fast as modern-day computers.


----------



## Arras (May 20, 2014)

Eity said:


> Oh well, it only means that I would use older builds. I have 64-bit processor from about 2007 but... I still using WinXP. Simply because I hate any later version of Windows.


Vista got some serious patching and updating and now it's decent, Windows 7 is basically fantastic and 8 is great if you can get used to it (which is not all that hard unless you're one of those people who violently reject any change, and even then installing Classic Shell or whatever will turn it into 7+). That, and with Windows XP no longer being support I'd seriously consider upgrading. Windows 7 runs just as well as XP did on an almost 10 year old PC here, so performance isn't much of a reason not to upgrade.


----------



## tbgtbg (May 20, 2014)

> Unfortunately for XP, he's the last sibling of the Windows family to be primarily 32-bit, while his younger brothers Vista, 7 and 8 are designed for 64-bit



That's not completely true. It wasn't until 7 when 64-bit pre-installs became common, most Vista installs were still 32-bit, and even with 7 a lot still were. Fuck 8.


----------



## nl255 (May 20, 2014)

Arras said:


> Vista got some serious patching and updating and now it's decent, Windows 7 is basically fantastic and 8 is great if you can get used to it (which is not all that hard unless you're one of those people who violently reject any change, and even then installing Classic Shell or whatever will turn it into 7+). That, and with Windows XP no longer being support I'd seriously consider upgrading. Windows 7 runs just as well as XP did on an almost 10 year old PC here, so performance isn't much of a reason not to upgrade.


 
Yeah, get used to things like no browser addons (so enjoy setting up CFW on your router so you can use dnsmasq based ad blocking), no OpenOffice/LibreOffice (so Google Docs it is unless you want to pay $$$ for MS Office) and having to go through a page of crap like stocks and weather every time you want to start a new program. At least VLC has a version for Windows 8 though it is still in beta.

And yes, you can just use Firefox, Chrome, and LibreOffice in desktop mode but the whole point of Windows 8.x is to move over to Metro apps.


----------



## Arras (May 20, 2014)

nl255 said:


> Yeah, get used to things like no browser addons (so enjoy setting up CFW on your router so you can use dnsmasq based ad blocking), no OpenOffice/LibreOffice (so Google Docs it is unless you want to pay $$$ for MS Office) and having to go through a page of crap like stocks and weather every time you want to start a new program. At least VLC has a version for Windows 8 though it is still in beta.
> 
> And yes, you can just use Firefox, Chrome, and LibreOffice in desktop mode but the whole point of Windows 8.x is to move over to Metro apps.


Seriously, what the fuck. You come across like Windows 8 murdered your parents or something. They're not going to "move away" from the desktop and suddenly break compatibility with 99% of all programs ever. Metro is just there to provide a unified interface for all Microsoft systems, so that people who use one will be able to adapt to another one easier, and so that developers can easily create a program that will work on multiple target platforms, should they choose to do so. If anything they may add a way to start default desktop apps in fullscreen Metro mode at some point but I refuse to believe for even a second the Desktop will be removed. Also, for the end user, their intentions don't matter jack shit because you can just install Classic Shell and BAM, you've got yourself Windows 7+.
Edit: also, that stocks and weather bullshit can be uninstalled without ever leaving the Metro interface.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 20, 2014)

Arras said:


> Seriously, what the fuck. You come across like Windows 8 murdered your parents or something. They're not going to "move away" from the desktop and suddenly break compatibility with 99% of all programs ever. Metro is just there to provide a unified interface for all Microsoft systems, so that people who use one will be able to adapt to another one easier, and so that developers can easily create a program that will work on multiple target platforms, should they choose to do so. If anything they may add a way to start default desktop apps in fullscreen Metro mode at some point but I refuse to believe for even a second the Desktop will be removed. Also, for the end user, their intentions don't matter jack shit because you can just install Classic Shell and BAM, you've got yourself Windows 7+.
> Edit: also, that stocks and weather bullshit can be uninstalled without ever leaving the Metro interface.


 
Should also be noted that they'll be bringing the start menu back in Windows 8.1 as well. But some people just like bitching and crying I guess.


----------



## nl255 (May 20, 2014)

Arras said:


> Seriously, what the fuck. You come across like Windows 8 murdered your parents or something. They're not going to "move away" from the desktop and suddenly break compatibility with 99% of all programs ever. Metro is just there to provide a unified interface for all Microsoft systems, so that people who use one will be able to adapt to another one easier, and so that developers can easily create a program that will work on multiple target platforms, should they choose to do so. If anything they may add a way to start default desktop apps in fullscreen Metro mode at some point but I refuse to believe for even a second the Desktop will be removed. Also, for the end user, their intentions don't matter jack shit because you can just install Classic Shell and BAM, you've got yourself Windows 7+.
> Edit: also, that stocks and weather bullshit can be uninstalled without ever leaving the Metro interface.


 
A shame there isn't a separate gesture or modifier key to jump straight to your apps list.  Oh well, someone will come up with a way to customize that first screen so you can put what you want on it instead of what Microsoft wants without having to go in and uninstall anything.  Still, app makers like Firefox and LibreOffice need to get their butts in gear and start making Windows 8 versions.


----------



## Fat D (May 20, 2014)

You can actually set up the start button to go straight to all apps from the setting menu on the desktop. While you are at it, you can also tell it to display desktop apps before modern apps. At least if you are using an up-to-date version (8.1 Update).
Seriously, the Taskbar and Navigation settings menu could be renamed "Windows 8 de-sucking".


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 20, 2014)

nl255 said:


> A shame there isn't a separate gesture or modifier key to jump straight to your apps list. Oh well, someone will come up with a way to customize that first screen so you can put what you want on it instead of what Microsoft wants without having to go in and uninstall anything. Still, app makers like Firefox and LibreOffice need to get their butts in gear and start making Windows 8 versions.


 
Except 8.1 has an option that _does_ let you skip to just the app list, my father uses it on his ultrabook and I used it until I installed Classic Shell. You can set it to boot to desktop, hit the Windows key, and then you get a list of all apps. You can set it to search all installed programs, not just windows store ones, and you can set it so shortcuts on your desktop get priority in the list.


EDIT:


----------



## Arras (May 20, 2014)

nl255 said:


> A shame there isn't a separate gesture or modifier key to jump straight to your apps list. Oh well, someone will come up with a way to customize that first screen so you can put what you want on it instead of what Microsoft wants without having to go in and uninstall anything. Still, app makers like Firefox and LibreOffice need to get their butts in gear and start making Windows 8 versions.


They don't, because they realize nobody uses it.


----------



## LWares87 (May 20, 2014)

32bit support was dead since October last year, when they abandoned D3D9.


----------



## nl255 (May 20, 2014)

Arras said:


> They don't, because they realize nobody uses it.


 
Though that will change once everyone uses it, even for "desktop" apps.  Of course the desktop is going away and it would be relatively easy for them to do.  Just create a thunking layer to translate GDI/DirectX calls into the appropriate Metro API calls (and since Metro supports DirectX it should be much easier than say, translating those into Quartz functions).  Thus retaining compatibility with 95% to 99.9% of all win32 desktop apps with no desktop.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (May 20, 2014)

Whao! I'm surprised, i always used and still using 32 bit OS cause for some reason my PC gets slow after some time on x64..... was it cause of HDD or something else idk..... ( I got a new HDD so i'll try it out again)


----------



## the_randomizer (May 20, 2014)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> Whao! I'm surprised, i always used and still using 32 bit OS cause for some reason my PC gets slow after some time on x64..... was it cause of HDD or something else idk..... ( I got a new HDD so i'll try it out again)


 

Could be any number of factors, memory leakage, HDD speed, driver issues, etc. 64-bit OSes are almost always going to be faster in the long run.


----------



## Mario92 (May 20, 2014)

Eity said:


> Oh well, it only means that I would use older builds. I have 64-bit processor from about 2007 but... I still using WinXP. Simply because I hate any later version of Windows.


 
Using XP is really high security risk even if you use up to date programs and AV even if it's still great. You are pretty much forced to update at some point anyway so it'll be easier when you can still do it with less worries and hurry. Reason why some companies are still using XP is because of 16-bit software which hasn't been updated and isn't supported with newer Windows versions because of security risks. 

32-bit era and DX9 has been around AGES. Especially with games that has been really dissapointing when 64-bit and openGL/DX11 could offer so much more. Some games have had those but usually as secondary feature so they didn't work that great or were buggier to regular build. 

I'm fairly sure if someone wants to use Dolphin they at least have 64-bit compatible hardware even if OS is 32-bit.





tbgtbg said:


> Fuck 8.


Yeah fuck 8. Yay for 8.1! It's like 7 but slightly better with few setting changing! If they named that update to 9 everyone would love it.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (May 20, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> Could be any number of factors, memory leakage, HDD speed, driver issues, etc. 64-bit OSes are almost always going to be faster in the long run.


 

Its just a pain to transfer all of the files from HDD now....
And the old HDD was pretty shitty, maybe it was it.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (May 21, 2014)

Mario92 said:


> Reason why some companies are still using XP is because of 16-bit software which hasn't been updated and isn't supported with newer Windows versions because of security risks.


They use XP still and pay for extended support because it costs them less than upgrading everything to 7.
Vista and 7 32-bit still have support for 16-bit software, not sure about Windows 8 32-bit.


----------



## Pleng (May 21, 2014)

RodrigoDavy said:


> They are dropping support for 32-bit in x86 architectures. I'm sure 32-bit Android support won't be dropped...


 
If you read the listed advantages of dropping 32bit support, it states they're going to specifically optimize the code for 64-bit architectures. That being the case, I doubt we'll be seeing any new Android builds until 64-bit Android devices start to appear.


(edit) ps sorry I've made a post about the Dolphin emulator - seems this is now another XP vs 7 thread!


----------



## grossaffe (May 21, 2014)

for everyone worried about android, they said right there in the conclusion: "32-bit ARM devices are not affected by this decision and will continue to be supported."


----------



## Hells Malice (May 21, 2014)

and no shits were given.

This makes perfect sense given how irrelevant 32bit is these days.


----------



## Jayro (May 21, 2014)

My next Windows reinstall will be 8.1+Update 1, 64-bit with ClassicShell. But for now, I'm stuck with my stable Windows 7 32-bit build, and am still happy with the performance it provides, given my 2007 hardware.


----------



## Fishaman P (May 21, 2014)

As a small nitpick, the announcement should say that PC 32-bit support is being dropped.  32-bit ARM support isn't going anywhere.

I really won't miss 32-bit, and it'll make user support MUCH easier.  My only gripe is that the AV-Sync hack has weird issues which make it a pain on 64-bit, but fine on 32-bit.  Really it's because of the outdated, bad patch, but it's still an issue nonetheless.


----------



## _47iscool (Jun 3, 2014)

My opinion of the 32-bit removal:


----------



## Celice (Jun 3, 2014)

_47iscool said:


> My opinion of the 32-bit removal:


The versions that are 32-bit still work rather well, so it's not as if those without 64-bit OS are being left in the dust.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 3, 2014)

_47iscool said:


> My opinion of the 32-bit removal:
> 
> [picardfacepalm.jpg]



Do go on... it is not like 32 bit is getting more powerful for what it is and to make further improvements they need to leave old tech behind.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 3, 2014)

_47iscool said:


> My opinion of the 32-bit removal:
> 
> [picardfacepalm]


 


I assume you read the reason why it was removed, right? 32-bit OSes are far more limited (only supports 3.75 GB of RAM max), they didn't want to maintain both 64-bit and 32-bit versions, not to mention 32-bit OSes will not be around for much longer.


----------

