32/64 Bit Wars to cease in 2012.

Prediction: The 32/64 Bit Wars will come to an end in 2012. Everybody is sick and tired of reading those 32 vs 54 stories all over the place.

Hopefully, this following PCWoreld blog will mark the end of this madness:

Windows 7 64-bit Users Living in a 32-bit World?
...
The most obvious example of a 64-bit Windows user living in a 32-bit world is online. Windows users can get a 64-bit version of Internet Explorer, but if you use other popular browsers like Chrome, Firefox, or Opera, then you're going to have to go 32-bit. In fact, if you're a dedicated Firefox user, you may want to think twice before making the 64-bit switch. Although Firefox is supposed to work on a 64-bit system, some Firefox users say the have had to resort to Windows 7's XP mode just to get Firefox to open ...

Don't tell me I am the only one sick 'n tired  reading this stuff.

By summer they will all stop thrashing  this dead horse. I think.

You are? I don't care. It works just fine. If you buy something new, it should be 64 bit unless you have a very good reason not to.

You are? I don't care. It works just fine. If you buy something new, it should be 64 bit unless you have a very good reason not to.

My point was I am tired of wading about it. By now everybody should know that if you run the 64 bit system you should be ready and able to get the 64 bit programs to go with it. If anybody is stuck on FireFox,  just install a 32 bit version of Windows and live in the past.

But if you don't even have a 64 bit CPU, the whole topic is pointless. And many users, the majority, and still using 32 bit CPUs.

Oh I forgot to post the link to PCWorld. Here is is, if anybody cares.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/181165/windows_7_64bit_users_living_in_a_32bit_world.html

I've been using a 64 bit OS for 2 years, and running successive 32 bit versions of Firefox, all bristling with addons, all of that time, and have had no problems whatsover.

In fact, if you're a dedicated Firefox user, you may want to think twice before making the 64-bit switch.

This is just plain bollocks, as we say here in Britain. Where does Geek find these stupid articles he quotes from?

You're from britain? Now Obama makes even less sense ...

Anyhow, Firefox works just fine on 64bit Windows. No problems whatsoever.

You're from britain? Now Obama makes even less sense ...

I know where I stand politically, and while that position* does not coincide exactly with Obama's, I find his opponents deeply repulsive.

* I see some US right wingers call Obama a "European socialist". That is ridiculous. I am a "European Socialist" and even the farthest "left" Democrats are way to the right of even European conservative parties, let alone socialist ones.

My point was I am tired of wading about it. By now everybody should know that if you run the 64 bit system you should be ready and able to get the 64 bit programs to go with it.

You can. The only reason most people use 32-bit browsers is because Adobe has been sitting on their thumbs for years. 64-bit Firefox builds work fine, but I've found that I have to use 32-bit on account of pages not being displayed for lack of things like flash.

Same story for IE, and any other 64-bit Browser. (Except google chrome, which doesn't even offer a 64-bit version for windows.)  For the most part, the problem isn't that it's difficult to make a program 64-bit, but it's difficult (impossible, really) to make your program 64-bit when it has dependencies that have no 64-bit version. In this case, Browser usage for most people depends, at least in part, on flash functionality. While it's arguable whether  that will be needed in the future (with the advent of HTML5) at the current time it is still used quite heavily. In many ways it's sort of sad that a single company's inability to create a 64-bit version of a single component can hold back "acceptance" of 64-bit systems (it hasn't, but it seems to have affected perceived acceptance)

Also, we need to consider the timeline, here.

The first 32-bit processor, the 386, was released in 1987. We didn't have widespread consumer support for 32-bit systems until the release of Windows 95. That's 7 years. The first consumer-oriented 64-bit processor was the AMD Opteron, released in 2005. We're sitting on the same 7 year mark, but the fact is that there hasn't been a "killer app" that necessitates moving to the 64-bit architecture. With 32-bit, it was Windows 95 and the various applications that required it. 64-bit architectures have yet to get one.

If anybody is stuck on FireFox,  just install a 32 bit version of Windows and live in the past.

Why? I use firefox, but I also use the 64-bit version of a number of applications; additionally, with 8GB of RAM I really have no choice but to use a 64-bit OS which even if I only use 32-bit applications will make that 8GB available to them. I also use several applications- and I have several games, which provide 64-bit executables for systems capable of running it; of course if I was to run a 32-bit OS, I'd be unable to use those 64-bit builds, and my 64-bit processor would sit in 32-bit emulation mode, it's 64-bit capabilities completely unused.

Saying that people who are still using firefox should stick with 32-bit windows is foolish. Why artificially limit a system's capabilities purely on the basis of a single application (which in this case, works fine either way anyway, both as a 32-bit running on x64 as well as the 64-bit builds, as ST states, the notation about firefox requiring XP mode or anything to that accord are nonsense)

And many users, the majority, and still using 32 bit CPUs.

Err... where are you getting this information from?

quotes from the link:

Even though 64-bit Windows systems were first introduced with Windows XP

Except they weren't. 64-bit Windows XP came in several versions; the IA-64 version for the Itanium which had terrible performance with 32-bit applications since they ran under software emulation, which isn't even close to the architecture used today; and a AMD64 version (x64) which was essentially Windows Server 2003 and wasn't released until several years after Windows XP, and after SP1 was released. It w imaas, for all intents and purposes, Not windows XP and was not marketed in the same way at all. So this presents an erroneous image.

One example is Real Player, which only recently came out with a 64-bit compatible version--Real Player SP 1.

I don't think anybody has taken Real Player seriously for at least a decade.

As a general rule, 32-bit versions of software will work on a 64-bit system. But that kind of defeats the purpose of upgrading, doesn't it?

No. Not even close. even if you only ran 32-bit applications- the built-in system components and applets will all still be 64-bit and take advantage of 64-bit features.

you're using an XP-era printer or scanner, it's a pretty safe bet that your device will not be 64-bit compatible.

If you still have an "XP era" printer, than that printer has had a Long service life. Buy another bloody printer.

I particularly love how the article hones in on this as if this is the "early days" of 64-bit system adoption. 64-bit is here and it's ALREADY adopted. the vast majority of systems run today by consumers are 64-bit capable, and nearly all systems sold in the last three to four years are x64. (I was unable to find concrete stats myself, but if one was to base such statistic purely on the systems being used by members seeking help on this forum it's a rare case where they have a system that isn't x64).

I don't think anybody has taken Real Player seriously for at least a decade.

Does that still exist? Boy, that is one annoying program.

Does that still exist? Boy, that is one annoying program.

well if we believe the article it does. I was surprised as well. I imagine nobody actually installs it on purpose, it probably has to get itself bundled into installers to get into people's PCs.

Does Geek realize this article dates from 2009?

Geek, what year do we live in?

[Moderator]

Many of his news articles are older.

Many of his news articles are older.

heh "news"...

Thanks all for rounding out this thread.  This is not 'News'  actually. Rather the point is that the industry should by now be over this 32/64 bit thing. As BC said, there is an apparent n7 year cycle. Still people complain about FireFox and lack of 64 bit support. And Adobe. And whoever. Even some printers and recently been on the market without real 64 bit Windows 7 drivers.

So, my prediction is that the 32/64 Bit Wars will end in the summer of 2012.
And not just 'cause In said so. Because it is about time. 

Also, the Mayan predictions about 2012 were about 64 bit computation, not the end of the world. The Mayans were waiting for 2012 before they went 64 bit. -----
It is just simple  logic.   

[Moderator]

Wow...

[Malware Removal Specialist]

In fact, if you're a dedicated Firefox user, you may want to think twice before making the 64-bit switch. Although Firefox is supposed to work on a 64-bit system, some Firefox users say the have had to resort to Windows 7's XP mode just to get Firefox to open ...

Waterfox - The fastest 64-Bit variant of Firefox!