Linux Kernel: "Drop Support For x86-32"

[Pallidus]

"however, those users seem to be left in the dust in many ways anyway, mainly due to GPU support associated by the P4's (and older) generation. "


indeed, you are forced to upgrade anyway and upgrading means 64 bit so what's the point of supporting stuff like pentium 4's if people can't really run the latest distros

[Linuxhippy]

How boring

How boring you try to lure readers to phoronix.com with useless .... like this!

[oliver]

So I'm writing this on my trusty T42, e.g. 32bit Pentium-M. Now lets rightfully assume that in 2 years from now, I won't be using it anymore and will have a 64bit capable laptop.

I also have an accesspoint, a WRT54GL that works very well still. Matter of fact, I don't think any consumerrouters exist that have a 64bit CPU. So until all these consumer devices are long gone, which can be 20 years easy, I don't see 32bit architecture go away anytime soon.

[ciplogic]

Personally, I was surprised that Windows 7 supported 32 bit processors at all, considering the system requirements for Vista. They improved things quite a bit from Vista, but I still think 7 should have been 64-bit only. Windows 8, definitely should have been 64-bit only (on x86). I'm guessing they left the support in for 32-bit tablets.

In 2006 at the end I've had a Pentium M 1.73 Ghz (Donthan) that offered decent performance for XP, and I've upgraded for Vista. I think that using the same hardware Windows 7 would be the next logical step (to upgrade).
Windows 7 works on notebooks and also they are working in lower end machines (mostly on memory specs) where 64 bit brings no advantage, or if is any, please point it out.
Windows 8 to be 64 bit only? Why? It uses basically the same specs as Windows 7 or Vista. 32 bit brings in itself some advantages, including that if you target a software package for a 32 bit Windows, you know that it will work with XP. And if you think that most XP users are owners of 32 bit machines, and some of Win7 users are on 32 bit machine too, I see no reason why Microsoft would not want to not support such of a wide user base.
At the end I'm thinking that Linux should follow the same path, and not only for tablets: running on more platforms means that they can enjoy the beauty of Linux. Remember Ubuntu PowerPC? Many Mac users were exposed to it: if you don't want to upgrade your Mac every time with 130 dollars (as it was at the time), you will get a newer Unix like experience for just writing it on a CD.
At the end, Linux is used a lot in schools, I know they use it in Spain. Why not allow users to upgrade their beloved OS with the newest Ubuntu, Suse or Fedora?

[AJSB]

I bet that the secret alleged troll was indeed....the guy responsible by PulseAudio and Systend...


It's moments like this that make me desire to reinstall Windows XP 32 bit....

[yogi_berra]

Windows 8, definitely should have been 64-bit only (on x86). I'm guessing they left the support in for 32-bit tablets.

It certainly has nothing to do with supporting currently existing software that all of their customers are using.

[Gusar]

Sorry, early morning here but... did I just read an article about some dude trolling LKMS?

You did. I think Michael got a good laugh out of it, and wanted Phoronix readers to get a laugh out of it too.

Also, this thing started about two months ago already, at the nvnews forums: http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=186238

Basically: LOL

[r1348]

Sorry, early morning here but... did I just read an article about some dude trolling LKMS?

[RussianNeuroMancer]

By the way: http://chakra-linux.org/news/index.p...6-support.html

[adler187]

tbh i think windows 7 should've been the last serious 32 bit release

Personally, I was surprised that Windows 7 supported 32 bit processors at all, considering the system requirements for Vista. They improved things quite a bit from Vista, but I still think 7 should have been 64-bit only. Windows 8, definitely should have been 64-bit only (on x86). I'm guessing they left the support in for 32-bit tablets.