3 ms·

You lose at least one thing with 64 bit Windows versus 32 bit, support for legacy 16 bit applications or components. When Windows Vista, 7 and 8 were released t

by tssva 9y ago

You lose at least one thing with 64 bit Windows versus 32 bit, support for legacy 16 bit applications or components. When Windows Vista, 7 and 8 were released there were still many in use which alone justified Microsoft releasing 32 bit OS versions. I still see them in use today but at a much much lower rate than 5 years ago when Windows 8 was released.

shawnz 9y ago
I don't think it would have been so hard for them to develop an emulation layer to run 16-bit programs on 64-bit if they were really concerned about having that functionality. It's not like performance issues are going to be a concern in a 16-bit application. So that might be a reason people still use 32-bit Windows, but it surely isn't the reason that Microsoft keeps building for 32-bit.
- MaulingMonkey 9y ago
  Throwing DOSBox at the problem is easy. Supporting the horrible legacy abominations combining 16-bit windows 3.1 targeting programs running side-by-side and interacting with 32-bit programs is a whole new can of worms. Maintaining an existing works-just-fine 32-bit build is way easier than writing, testing, QAing, and fielding support requests when the emulator layer breaks some poor bastard's existing workflow.
acchow 9y ago
Would it work in a 32-bit VM?
- 0x0 9y ago
  Maybe but then you need to maintain a whole separate windows installation with separate printer and scanner drivers and network logins and so on. Plus your files are hidden away inside a vm disk image. If all you need is some light internet/mail access and your legacy applications, while still being able to use your peripherals, 32bit windows fits the bill perfectly as long as 64bit windows refuses to implement 16bit compatibility.
brianpgordon 9y ago
Exactly. That small number of 32-bit Windows-running Backblaze customers might very well have legacy 16-bit applications that they need to continue to support. It's remarkable that the author of this post completely missed that point, and in fact goes on and on about how you lose nothing by running 64-bit Windows.
- Joeri 9y ago
  Those customers can use emulation to cover their needs. The point of the article is that whatever benefits exist of the 32 bit skew, they are outweighed by its costs.
  - tssva 9y ago
    From his perspective but not from the perspective of those who still need to maintain the systems using 16-bit apps. The costs of emulation and virtualization outweigh the cost of deploying a 32-bit version of Windows for them. Emulation and virtualization aren't always an option. For instance if the application is used to support a piece of hardware that needs to be physically connected. Also some methods of copy protection or license validation used then will not work with emulation or virtualization.
- tssva 9y ago
  To be fair I think the number of 16-bit applications still in use would surprise a lot of people. The author responded to a comment I left on the blog about 16-bit applications and he seemed confused about when development of 16-bit applications would have ended. He seemed to think around 1988; however, the Win32 API wasn't rolled out to the desktop until 1995 with Windows 95. Internet Explorer was available in a 16-bit version until IE5 which was released in 1999. Most of the 16-bit applications I see still in production had last releases in the early 2000s.
jandrese 9y ago
You also lose out on some drivers for older hardware. Most of that hardware is trash, but occasionally people still want to use it even if it means being stuck on 32 bit Windows. Usually it's in the form of "I tried upgrading to Win 10 and my multifunction scanner/printer/fax machine stopped working, so I had to downgrade back to 32 bit Win 7."

by tssva 9y ago

shawnz 9y ago

I don't think it would have been so hard for them to develop an emulation layer to run 16-bit programs on 64-bit if they were really concerned about having that functionality. It's not like performance issues are going to be a concern in a 16-bit application. So that might be a reason people still use 32-bit Windows, but it surely isn't the reason that Microsoft keeps building for 32-bit.

MaulingMonkey 9y ago
Throwing DOSBox at the problem is easy. Supporting the horrible legacy abominations combining 16-bit windows 3.1 targeting programs running side-by-side and interacting with 32-bit programs is a whole new can of worms. Maintaining an existing works-just-fine 32-bit build is way easier than writing, testing, QAing, and fielding support requests when the emulator layer breaks some poor bastard's existing workflow.

acchow 9y ago

Would it work in a 32-bit VM?

0x0 9y ago
Maybe but then you need to maintain a whole separate windows installation with separate printer and scanner drivers and network logins and so on. Plus your files are hidden away inside a vm disk image. If all you need is some light internet/mail access and your legacy applications, while still being able to use your peripherals, 32bit windows fits the bill perfectly as long as 64bit windows refuses to implement 16bit compatibility.

brianpgordon 9y ago

Exactly. That small number of 32-bit Windows-running Backblaze customers might very well have legacy 16-bit applications that they need to continue to support. It's remarkable that the author of this post completely missed that point, and in fact goes on and on about how you lose nothing by running 64-bit Windows.

Joeri 9y ago
Those customers can use emulation to cover their needs. The point of the article is that whatever benefits exist of the 32 bit skew, they are outweighed by its costs.
- tssva 9y ago
  From his perspective but not from the perspective of those who still need to maintain the systems using 16-bit apps. The costs of emulation and virtualization outweigh the cost of deploying a 32-bit version of Windows for them. Emulation and virtualization aren't always an option. For instance if the application is used to support a piece of hardware that needs to be physically connected. Also some methods of copy protection or license validation used then will not work with emulation or virtualization.
tssva 9y ago
To be fair I think the number of 16-bit applications still in use would surprise a lot of people. The author responded to a comment I left on the blog about 16-bit applications and he seemed confused about when development of 16-bit applications would have ended. He seemed to think around 1988; however, the Win32 API wasn't rolled out to the desktop until 1995 with Windows 95. Internet Explorer was available in a 16-bit version until IE5 which was released in 1999. Most of the 16-bit applications I see still in production had last releases in the early 2000s.

jandrese 9y ago

You also lose out on some drivers for older hardware. Most of that hardware is trash, but occasionally people still want to use it even if it means being stuck on 32 bit Windows. Usually it's in the form of "I tried upgrading to Win 10 and my multifunction scanner/printer/fax machine stopped working, so I had to downgrade back to 32 bit Win 7."