ANYONE USING 32 BIT

[Brickwizard]

Just a reminder 32 bit is on its last legs, the following was posted 2 years ago, but still relevent

Debian preps ground to drop 32-bit x86 as a separate edition

Bad news for several downstream distros, but good news for NetBSD

www.theregister.com

 

[CaffeineAddict]

I have nothing to add or comment on 32bit, it's time for people to upgrade their hardware, no way around that.

But made me curious when will 128 bit CPU's come to stage?

Then found this:

Why Don't We Have 128-Bit Computers Yet?

Do the math.

www.howtogeek.com

 

[kc1di]

My last 32 bit machine died about 2 years ago but had it for almost 15 years was an hp Desktop and worked fine for awhile but had to change the graphics card to AMD after Nvidia stopped supporting that old model. People might as well get use to the fact that 32bit will be gone some day in the not too distant future.

 

[The Duck]

Why Don't We Have 128-Bit Computers Yet?

Do the math.

www.howtogeek.com

From the above article.
"Cost and resources: Developing and manufacturing 128-bit processors could be cost-prohibitive and resource-intensive, making mass production unprofitable."

The cost alone will keep many from purchasing.

Most folks nowadays use their Smartphones and or Tablets for most everything.

I can see where 128 bit would could benefit industry but for the home base computer user nope.

Only benefit 128 bit would give a home base computer user is bragging rights.

Myself I'd go to an Android tablet or a Raspberry Pi it would do everything I need to do.

Good articles guys thanks for sharing.

 

[The Duck]

People might as well get use to the fact that 32bit will we gone some day in the not too distant future.

I have an old 32 bit box I built for Flight Simulator 2002 and run Windows XP on without internet connection.

I just like the nostalgia of an old desktop.

 

[CaffeineAddict]

From the above article.

I feel like I shouldn't have hijacked this thread with 128bit CPU's.
Sorry @Brickwizard

Please continue discussing i386

 

[KGIII]

There's no real need for 128 bit CPUs at this point, and probably not for a long time, at least as far as generalized computing goes. We simply have an abundance of addressable bits. We can have up to 16 exabytes of RAM, for example. Until we start regularly reaching those thresholds, there's no need for increasing the number of bits we can address - in generalized computing.

There are some applications in supercomputing that could probably benefit from more addressable space, but we don't really need that at this time. I doubt we'll need anything more for the duration of my lifetime.

 

[Trynna3]

I have revived my old Asus laptop and I thought it had to be 32bit Linux because I think Vista was 32 bit.
Great was my joy when I found out the machine could also take 64bit system and it has one at the moment.
I still have a feeling of loss over one era ending for good. Those were my years of frequent travel and has a lot of memories.

 

[f33dm3bits]

32 bit for life, we don't need 64 bit systems. 64 bit systems are bad for the environment, aka electronic waste. /sarcasm.

 

[Trynna3]

32 bit for life, we don't need 64 bit systems. 64 bit systems are bad for the environment, aka electronic waste. /sarcasm.

haha
I watched a video, one guy pointed at the lawsuit against M$ for ditching Win10 too early. Previous Windoze OSs kept receiving support for 8 or more years before being cut off, from when the newer OS launched, but Win10 has had only 4 years since Win11 came about.
I think it was a fair point.

 

[Brickwizard]

32 bit for life, we don't need 64 bit systems.

I still miss the old IBM 8bit systems, [but not a lot]

 

[Brian Alex]

I still run a dual-boot Mint/Win XP 32 bit from 2005. Getting pretty difficult to actually connect to much these days with the available browsers and the modern websites lacking compatibility. I posted here (I think) for help and I was branded a troll. lol. I clearly wasn't believed.

 

[MikeRocor]

I'm running 32 bit on a little HP thin client. The machine is 64-bit capable, but only has 4 GB of RAM, so the gain in moving to 64 bit software is limited. It's running, headless, as a web server for local net access only. I often do a 32 bit install alongside my 64 bit installs on other machines but, TBH, I hardly ever boot the 32 bit installs on those.

 

[Trynna3]

I'm running 32 bit on a little HP thin client. The machine is 64-bit capable, but only has 4 GB of RAM, so the gain in moving to 64 bit software is limited. It's running, headless, as a web server for local net access only. I often do a 32 bit install alongside my 64 bit installs on other machines but, TBH, I hardly ever boot the 32 bit installs on those.

That argument to go for 32 bit on only 4GB RAM interests me. I also have one old laptop like this. I currently have 64bit linux installed, but even that is struggling with youtube videos. Will 32bit be better with limited RAM? I cannot believe that 4GB RAM (the BIOS seems to recognise only 3GB though) is not sufficient for a smooth youtube play.

 

[Brickwizard]

(the BIOS seems to recognise only 3GB though)

Sounds like a faulty ram, install and run memtester

 

[MikeRocor]

Sounds like a faulty ram, install and run memtester

I suspect we're just seeing the GB vs GiB thing, which I refuse to bother with.

I cannot believe that 4GB RAM (the BIOS seems to recognise only 3GB though) is not sufficient for a smooth youtube play.

The RAM issue there is that watching youtube videos so often happens in a browser that, by itself, is is a complete pig about memory. Then, if you want to watch that video in one tab while having additional videos queued up in other tabs, that will likely eat a bunch of memory. If the link to a video was in a facebook post... well, your RAM was already all used up, regardless of how much you have.

 

[Trynna3]

Sounds like a faulty ram, install and run memtester

possibly.
I did some checks long ago, and pulled this from my archive:
I did buy 2 spare RAM, each 2GB
I thought the second one was not recognised by BIOS and hence it showed only 1GiB (or GB, that's how I am used to it). It was from ebay actually.

now also finding, I bought these:

 

[Trynna3]

And these were the originals (1GB each). AI talks about low and high density, but they all look the same, with 8 chips on each.

 

[bob466]

Anyone still living in a cave.

 

[Huxoslos]

Just a reminder 32 bit is on its last legs, the following was posted 2 years ago, but still relevent

Debian preps ground to drop 32-bit x86 as a separate edition

Bad news for several downstream distros, but good news for NetBSD

www.theregister.com

Is there any good reason why some would choose 32bit still in 2025? I would assume most would just move to 64bit anyway when that came