Linux Kernel: "Drop Support For x86-32"

[Markore]

SPARC is not old, SPARC is the only server CPU freed under GPL

SPARC is not old architecture it is present.

There is Ultrasparc T2 CPU that is GLP'ed for Microprocessor definition
and is free to develop, manufacture adn enhance in open.: www.opensparc.net

As there are old - x86 CPUs, there is also old SPRCs but that does not say whole architecture is old or something.
It evolves and is being developed further, same for x86 ,SPARC and POWER.

[gamerk2]

A user of such device says hi!

Yea, dropping 32-bit is just plain stupid. That said, what would be a good thing for Microsoft to do is drop WOW64 by not having it installed by default. Perhaps offer it as a download. That would be enough to motivate developers to do a proper 64-bit build.

And ever single SW maker would go balistic if they did. If performance demands it, devs will make 64-bit builds.

Ancient 32-bit apps run on Windows x64 just fine in most cases, just like most ancient 32-bit apps run on Linux x86_64 just fine (assuming you install the 32-bit userland). The only things that need to be upgraded/replaced are drivers (and the odd program whose authors did something stupid).

More or less on the spot.

[gamerk2]

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.

MSFT made it clear they wanted Win8 to support everything 7 did. Same NT 6.1 Kernel too, so no real reason to force that issue. I fully expect Win8 to be the last 32bit OS by MSFT though. Which makes me wonder if MSFT will get around to re-coding a LOT of the legacy stuff thats still in Windows...

But for an OS like Linux? No reason to force the issue. Totally different user base.

[dfx.]

So... uh... Michael pretty much admits that he wrote this article to troll the forums. Huh.

and, surprisingly, it looks like his most well-written article too.
go figure.

[Hamish Wilson]

This doom and gloom of "being left in the dust" and "being forced to upgrade" is just plain ridiculous. It might be true for a few distros, but you're not being forced to use them, there's plenty of other choices, and by that I don't just mean LTS distros like CentOS.

Well, I am putting CentOS on a system equipped with a P4 right now, but it was primarily for other reasons.

Regardless, most of my hardware is still better off using 32 bit ATM, so I am definitely glad this guy was shot down.

[lsatenstein]

Long live LInux 32bit

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?

I reformat almost every XP system I get, I install Linux, and use the box as a file server, or as a firewall. Thirty-two bit systems also help me to test code that I write. In developing countries, many 386 and 486 boxes get recycled as donations to schools with Linux installed. Should this stop? As the original post author wrote, Schools still make use of this 32bit hardware with Linux installed.

[archibald]

that guy was shot down by Al Viro&co pretty much at once - and Phoronix makes a big story out of it.

Moronix?
Bad Taste?
Trolling for Advertisement?

It came across to me (and was mentioned in the article as): "This made me laugh, it may make you laugh too.", and I thoroughly approve of people making me laugh :-)

[energyman]

that guy was shot down by Al Viro&co pretty much at once - and Phoronix makes a big story out of it.

Moronix?
Bad Taste?
Trolling for Advertisement?

[elanthis]

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

Ancient 32-bit apps run on Windows x64 just fine in most cases, just like most ancient 32-bit apps run on Linux x86_64 just fine (assuming you install the 32-bit userland). The only things that need to be upgraded/replaced are drivers (and the odd program whose authors did something stupid).

[Nille]

32bit CPU's are still far more relevant than 64bit CPU's.

I think you overrate the marketshare from the 32bit Only CPUs. And if Windows 9 drop the 32bit Only Support, your CPU doesn't die in the same moment. I bet you has 10-15 years before 32bit really die die in the Microsoft Environment.