32-bit versions of Windows 10

<blockquote><a href="#511235"><em>In reply to wright_is:</em></a></blockquote><p>As I stated in my original post, are those 32-bit CPUs actually cheaper thesedays than using a 64-bit CPU, given how-many 64-bit CPUs are made per production-run thesedays?</p><p><br></p><p>As all desktops, laptops and servers thesedays come-with 64-bit CPUs, as do all iPhones, iPads and Macs (Apple Watch I believe is still a 32-bit CPU; Apple TV might also be), then the only devices to use 32-bit CPUs will be some Android phones and tablets, cheapo Windows tablets and netbooks, and possibly some integrated systems (smart TVs, smart fridges and things like lifts/elevators — which may even still be using 16-bit CPUs, given the very-basic functions they perform!).</p><p><br></p><p>Surely 64-bit CPUs of the same die size, wattage, speed, cores and threads must be cheaper to bulk-buy than equivalent 32-bit ones thesedays simply due to how many of each are made? Or are 32-bit CPUs still substantially cheaper?</p>

<blockquote><em><a href="#511238">In reply to maethorechannen:</a></em></blockquote><p>There are likely better distros out there than Ubuntu and Mint (even the XFCE one) if you have a really old 32-bit system. I'm not sure how well Mint XFCE would run on a Pentium III or older system with around 256MB of RAM or less, for example.</p><p><br></p><p>Also, the Ubuntu controversy was actually that they were looking to remove 32-bit libraries/dependancies from the 64-bit version, so 32-bit apps would not work, but backtracked after finding very-common apps, such as Steam and I believe parts of WINE, would not work.</p><p><br></p><p>There hasn't been an official ISO of Ubuntu in 32-bit now for a number of releases (I think early 2017's 17.04 (Zesty Zapus) was the last for clients, and late 2017's 17.10 (Artful Aardvark) the last for servers?)</p>

<blockquote><em><a href="#511375">In reply to crp0908:</a></em></blockquote><p>Just as wright_is has said though: if you have a really old PC still running a device there are only 32-bit drivers or 16-bit apps for, would you really need 32-bit Windows 10 on that PC, if the computer is not connected to the Internet, and especially if it's non-networked, standalone?</p><p><br></p><p>If the PC is isolated from wider networks, heck, even keep running Windows 95 on there if required.</p><p><br></p><p>I just wonder though if Microsoft should keep investing in adding all the new features to the 32-bit version of Windows 10, given aside from the dirt-cheap devices you can buy online, the biggest need for 32-bit Windows 10 will be in cases like yours, where it just needs to run an old device or app. In which case, all those new features aren't getting used so it feels like a waste.</p><p><br></p><p>They really should transition 32-bit Win 10 to "security and bug-fix only" at the very least…</p>

<blockquote><em><a href="#511813">In reply to jimchamplin:</a></em></blockquote><p>I didn't suggest Microsoft outlaw the use of all their previous 32-bit operating systems though, so if you have old PCs you want to run 32-bit Windows XP or older on (heck, even 16-bit Windows 3.x) go ahead!</p><p><br></p><p>My point is purely: should Microsoft continue to go-on providing new releases of Windows 10 in the 32-bit versions, given 64-bit ones can run 32-bit apps, and in cases like yours, where people want to run old apps and games on old hardware, you'd never think about putting Windows 10 on those PCs anyway (assuming you could even find drivers for the hardware they'd have).</p><p><br></p><p>And for Pentium III or older, it's a no-go full-stop as during the Windows 7 era (for one of the security updates) they retroactively changed the minimum spec to say your processor must support SSE2 or later. (I believe the current Linux kernel still supports back to the original Pentium, but not anything before that.)</p>