Time to retire a 32-bit processor?

[keyon]

Despite the fact that my PC is four years old, I always thought I had relatively powerful machine (3.2 ghz, 8 GB memory).
However, some of the software I've tried to load recently is generating installation errors -- most of which have something to do with certain components of the software not being compatible with a 32-bit processor. They're not fatal errors, but "warnings" according to the log files.

Is it time to simply retire my old workhorse and go with a 64-bit machine?

[deepsand]

Hell, no. The installed user base of 32 bit machines is simply much too large at the present to expect that support for it is going to disappear anytime soon.

[keyon]

Hell, no. The installed user base of 32 bit machines is simply much too large at the present to expect that support for it is going to disappear anytime soon.

Well, continued support may be one thing, but I question how well a 32-bit machine can run current versions of software (like Windows 7). My experience so far is that it's not working that well. My machine worked great with XP (which certainly has lost support), but after installing W7 and then trying to install some current versions of Adobe products, it doesn't seem to be a very happy computer.

[deepsand]

By "support" I here mean that products for it continue to be developed; it's going to be a very, very long time before 32 bit machines go away.

Your version of Win 7 is a 32 bit version; the 64 bit version would not run on a 32 bit machine.

Any problems that you have owe, not to yours being a 32 bit machine, but to other resource issues.

BTW, support for XP will be around for quite some time to come. MS will be officially supporting it at least until some time in 2014. And, owing in great part to economic conditions, Win 7 is only being very slowly adopted.

[keyon]

BTW, support for XP will be around for quite some time to come. MS will be officially supporting it at least until some time in 2014.

It was my understanding that XP is much more vulnerable to malware, viruses, etc. than Win 7 --- something like 8 times more vulnerable? That was my only reason for switching to Win 7 (I still prefer the XP interface).

In regard to the 32 bit / 64 bit issue, some of the newer Adobe software I've tried to install is reporting installation errors that say I need a 64 bit machine.

[deepsand]

It was my understanding that XP is much more vulnerable to malware, viruses, etc. than Win 7 --- something like 8 times more vulnerable? That was my only reason for switching to Win 7 (I still prefer the XP interface).

True or false - I doubt that that 8x number is realistic - it's immaterial to the issue of 32-bit vs 64.

In regard to the 32 bit / 64 bit issue, some of the newer Adobe software I've tried to install is reporting installation errors that say I need a 64 bit machine.

Be that as it may, it does not alter the fact that 32-bit machines are and will remain the norm for quite some time.

[SteveB]

I do agree with deepsand that support for 32 bit machines will be around for a good number of years, but we're seeing new orders here requesting 64 bit over 32 bit at a rate of approximately 9 to 1.

[deepsand]

I do agree with deepsand that support for 32 bit machines will be around for a good number of years, but we're seeing new orders here requesting 64 bit over 32 bit at a rate of approximately 9 to 1.

Demographics of buyers?

[SteveB]

I think demographics does come into play as most requests we receive for 32 bit machines come from the Middle East.

[deepsand]

Developers or users?