Page 2 of 4
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 08:52
by Moonchild
vannilla wrote:32 bit Windows: a standard Windows installation.
64 bit Windows: a modernized Windows where most programs won't work because they are compiled for 32 bit.
As pointed out not entirely correct. 64-bit windows is standard these days, but the difference is that all 32-bit and 64-bit programs work on it (I'd say equally well) because of the 32-bit
windows-on-windows subsystem. Compiling for 32-bit has therefore been a safe choice for many companies and developers for years because it would run everywhere without having to sort out 64-bit specific bugs. 32-bit programs on 64-bit Windows tend to actually run more stable than 64-bit programs, because a certain level of hardware abstraction happens for 32-bit programs that avoids e.g. driver quirks, which we encounter more often than not. In addition, if you have other 32-bit software it can often only directly communicate with ours if we are on the same architecture.
That being said, 32-bit Windows on modern hardware is a lot more common to encounter than 32-bit Linux (which is pretty much limited to very old systems), especially on low-spec endpoint machines that don't need more than 2-4 GB of RAM in them.
As such, for now, we continue 32-bit Windows builds, but will eventually discontinue them once 32-bit Windows finds itself in the same situation as 32-bit Linux is now. Different environment, different audience; different criteria to consider.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 10:00
by yereverluvinuncleber
The 32bit version of Palemoon works much better for me on windows 7 ultimate 64bit on a Dell e5400 core2duo that has been my daily workhorse for the last three years now. The 64bit version would hang for 30-40 seconds and stutter regularly. I suggest that some of the hardware, the GPU in particular cannot handle the 64bit throughput required. I reverted to the 32bit version and it felt like my machine had receive a CPU upgrade as the 32bit version flew by comparison.
Please for the sake of the mortals among us who are forced by exingency to use less powerful (but still competent) hardware, keep the 32 bit builds going. For your information I also have to keep a 32 bit environment going for VB6 development (there is tons of it still around) and that obviously requires a 32bit browser. If it is not that much extra work to make a 32 bit build then please keep doing it!
Palemoon is my standard browser now and I like to have it on every machine I have to work on 64/32bit. I have the option of Kmeleon but I don't want to go looking for another browser again now that I have finally settled upon PM (I haven't needed to start FF for 3 months now).
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 12:20
by Moonchild
Maybe you misread my previous post: we have no plans to discontinue Win x86 (32-bit) versions any time soon.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 14:53
by zapper
Moonchild wrote:vannilla wrote:32 bit Windows: a standard Windows installation.
64 bit Windows: a modernized Windows where most programs won't work because they are compiled for 32 bit.
As pointed out not entirely correct. 64-bit windows is standard these days, but the difference is that all 32-bit and 64-bit programs work on it (I'd say equally well) because of the 32-bit
windows-on-windows subsystem. Compiling for 32-bit has therefore been a safe choice for many companies and developers for years because it would run everywhere without having to sort out 64-bit specific bugs. 32-bit programs on 64-bit Windows tend to actually run more stable than 64-bit programs, because a certain level of hardware abstraction happens for 32-bit programs that avoids e.g. driver quirks, which we encounter more often than not. In addition, if you have other 32-bit software it can often only directly communicate with ours if we are on the same architecture.
That being said, 32-bit Windows on modern hardware is a lot more common to encounter than 32-bit Linux (which is pretty much limited to very old systems), especially on low-spec endpoint machines that don't need more than 2-4 GB of RAM in them.
As such, for now, we continue 32-bit Windows builds, but will eventually discontinue them once 32-bit Windows finds itself in the same situation as 32-bit Linux is now. Different environment, different audience; different criteria to consider.
Thank you for answering my curiosity. This is interesting for sure. I didn't know that 32 bit windows was more stable then 64 bit windows.
This is fascinating.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 16:46
by yereverluvinuncleber
Moonchild wrote:Maybe you misread my previous post: we have no plans to discontinue Win x86 (32-bit) versions any time soon.
Thankyou for that. I was merely making my puny 32bit voice heard so that in the future when the time does come, we puny ones are not forgotten.
If you don't call out know one will know you are actually still there.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 18:02
by Moonchild
zapper wrote:I didn't know that 32 bit windows was more stable then 64 bit windows.
That isn't what I said!
Please read my post again.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 18:30
by PalleP
Am I the only one who use Win7 32bit because I refuse to let M$ dictate (and make $ on) what drivers I can install on
my pc if it is 64bit
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 20:02
by Moonchild
PalleP wrote:Am I the only one who use Win7 32bit because I refuse to let M$ dictate (and make $ on) what drivers I can install on
my pc if it is 64bit
Probably. All driver vendors have long since gone through the hoops of code-signing their drivers; unless you insist on running unofficial or self-compiled drivers, there's no reason why this should prevent you from using Windows x64
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 20:20
by PalleP
And the principle of economically supporting M$ by using 64bit drivers?
I know it is nuts thinking about that, but I really despise M$ and don't want to ever again help financing their madness.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 20:31
by Moonchild
Off-topic:PalleP wrote:And the principle of economically supporting M$ by using 64bit drivers?
I know it is nuts thinking about that, but I really despise M$ and don't want to ever again help financing their madness.
Then why are you using Windows to begin with? If you feel that strongly about it you should be using a different operating system.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 21:09
by PalleP
Off-topic:
I have not always felt that way. In the Win XP days I actually found M$ to be my friend, delivering a superb operating system and a userfriendly office pack ect.
When Win 7 arrived, I saw how M$ didn't react to even massive user reports of bugs and absurd mistakes, and now, many years later, they still havent fixed many of the bugs and mistakes.
Then the totally absurd Win 10 circus started and I lost any confidence to M$. My despise came with their disrespectful attempts to try tricking Win7 users.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-05, 21:42
by yami_
Off-topic:
So Microsoft can dictate what drivers you install on 64-bit Windows bun not on 32-bit Windows? How so?
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-06, 08:55
by PalleP
yami_ wrote:Off-topic:
So Microsoft can dictate what drivers you install on 64-bit Windows bun not on 32-bit Windows? How so?
Off-topic:
The 32bit version of Win7 do not require the drivers to be signed by M$.
This means no $ to M$, and also means that old programs with unsigned drivers can be used.
In my case it means that I can use (older) industrial programs without fighting with this issue.
I also don't notice any performance gain with the 64bit version, so why should I use it?
I think only people using eg. heavy 3D graphics programs will notice an advantage. Also video editing/conversion will be faster if the pc specs are very high, otherwise the processor speed will do the limit no matter if it is 32bit or 64bit.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-06, 11:26
by yami_
Off-topic:
Actually, I have installed unsigned divers on 64-bit versions of Windows 7, 8 and 10. I need the unsigned driver for one of my devices.The only thing I need to do in Windows 7 is enter advanced boot menu and select "Disable Driver Signature Enforcement". In Windows 8 and 10 you need to enable the older boot loader using bcdedit first, then you can follow the Windows 7 instructions.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-06, 11:52
by PalleP
yami_ wrote:Off-topic:
Actually, I have installed unsigned divers on 64-bit versions of Windows 7, 8 and 10. I need the unsigned driver for one of my devices.The only thing I need to do in Windows 7 is enter advanced boot menu and select "Disable Driver Signature Enforcement". In Windows 8 and 10 you need to enable the older boot loader using bcdedit first, then you can follow the Windows 7 instructions.
Off-topic:
Yes, and you need to do these steps every single time you boot your pc, so calling this "the only thing I need to do" may be a little misleading.
There is, as far as I know, no hack that will effectively remove the driver signsture enforcement, maybe unless you are willing to try hacks from very suspect sources.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-06, 14:01
by Thehandyman1957
Strange, I have unsigned drivers on my computer and I didn't have to do any of those things and I use Windows 7 64 bit.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-06, 14:43
by yami_
PalleP wrote:Off-topic:
Yes, and you need to do these steps every single time you boot your pc, so calling this "the only thing I need to do" may be a little misleading.
There is, as far as I know, no hack that will effectively remove the driver signsture enforcement, maybe unless you are willing to try hacks from very suspect sources.
Off-topic:
Well, yes, you need to do that every time you install/load the driver. I could have phrased this better... Other options include runing Windows in TESTSIGNING mode and self-singing your drivers or attaching a kernel debugger.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-06, 14:48
by yami_
Thehandyman1957 wrote:Strange, I have unsigned drivers on my computer and I didn't have to do any of those things and I use Windows 7 64 bit.
Off-topic:
AFAIK the driver needs to be signed only if it is going to work in ring 0 or is a device driver.
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-07, 00:15
by Thehandyman1957
yami_ wrote:Thehandyman1957 wrote:Strange, I have unsigned drivers on my computer and I didn't have to do any of those things and I use Windows 7 64 bit.
Off-topic:
AFAIK the driver needs to be signed only if it is going to work in ring 0 or is a device driver.
Gotcha
Re: Have mercy on us 32-bit souls
Posted: 2018-07-07, 01:01
by zapper
Moonchild wrote:zapper wrote:I didn't know that 32 bit windows was more stable then 64 bit windows.
That isn't what I said!
Please read my post again.
I may have not read correctly the first time, but you said that 32 bit is more supported by companies and that is why you do it?
Regardless, is it easy or hard to make a 32 bit for linux without you doing so, the only reason I ask, is because, my distro might end up doing just that and I was curious it it would be difficult for them.
ps, I am not really asking you to do, just wondering that's all.