NVidia dropping support for 32 bit OSes [NVidia]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Muhammed

Senior member
Jul 8, 2009
453
199
116
At least they still plan on supporting security fixes for 2019. And they still support 7, 8, and 10. Unlike AMD who dropped support for 32bit completely (no security whatsoever) and have no support for 8.

I think for any gamer, a 32 bit Windows doesn't work with a lot of games anymore. So the move makes sense nowadays.

Anyhow 390 driver is not due anytime soon I presume.
 

Krteq

Senior member
May 22, 2015
991
671
136
Unlike AMD who dropped support for 32bit completely (no security whatsoever)...
o_O What?

17_2_2y2sxy.jpg


Stop crapping every thread again :mad:
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
32 bit Windows doesn't allow enough RAM for modern games, so it's unlikely anyone would be pairing it with a modern GPU anyway. For legacy games, you don't really need driver upgrades.

Hopefully the driver package gets smaller once they strip out the 32 bit code.

As for AMD, Windows 8 was an abject failure like Vista. It never achieved significant market share and is currently at about 6%, which is what XP has. What an embarrassment to Microsoft.

Actually Windows 10 would be much lower too, were it not for Microsoft's malware-forced-upgrades ("hey, let's change the red 'X' to mean "I accept"), combined with a zero cost.
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,710
3,554
136
Windows 8.1 with Classic Start Menu is actually great. You don't have to touch the Metro UI that way if all your apps are Win32.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ViRGE

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
32 bit Windows doesn't allow enough RAM for modern games, so it's unlikely anyone would be pairing it with a modern GPU anyway. For legacy games, you don't really need driver upgrades.

Hopefully the driver package gets smaller once they strip out the 32 bit code.

Do you think this will increase performance? I know that in 64 bit mode, SSE2 is mandatory, so they could strip out any x87 code if they are using any for 32 bit code.

Actually Windows 10 would be much lower too, were it not for Microsoft's malware-forced-upgrades ("hey, let's change the red 'X' to mean "I accept"), combined with a zero cost.

You really believe that? I don't understand how people think Windows 7 is such a great OS. Sure it was a great OS in it's heyday, but now it's just old and decrepit with tons of security vulnerabilities. I'm glad they are phasing it out at work and replacing it with Windows 10.
 

Tweak155

Lifer
Sep 23, 2003
11,447
262
126
I fail to see how this is a problem.
I don't see where it was indicated that this is a problem... looks more like an FYI to me.

And FYI stands for "For Your Information" to the people still on 32 bit OSes that never got with the times. Added that translation so you don't have to google it on your inadequate machine. :D
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
Do you think this will increase performance? I know that in 64 bit mode, SSE2 is mandatory, so they could strip out any x87 code if they are using any for 32 bit code.
Probably not as they're likely using different code paths already, but it may possibly allow them to strip out some legacy/shared code.

You really believe that?
Absolutely. If it cost money and wasn't secretly force-installed like a root-kit, I think it'd have the same fate as Windows 8. Even after losing $billions in the phone/portable market, Microsoft still don't understand that nobody wants their telemetry metrosexual OS with its walled garden app store.

Microsoft just wants to turn your PC into a locked down phone appliance which they fully control through the store, one-drive, the bit-torrent style of shared updating, and "Windows as a service". Notice for example they can decide to remove support for older hardware at any time, and deprecate features. In the past that wasn't a problem as you could stay on the older OS. Now you can't because there's no such thing as an older OS. Even Apple still releases discrete MacOS versions.

The kernel has some good features, but the actual direction of the OS is designed to compete with iOS/Android, and they're happy to burn up desktop market share to get it. That's why the "upgrade" tactics were so abominable.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-forced-downloads-we-wont-do-them-again-pledges-microsoft/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu2Ls1jDR2w

I don't understand how people think Windows 7 is such a great OS. Sure it was a great OS in it's heyday, but now it's just old and decrepit with tons of security vulnerabilities.
Eh? Windows 7 will receive security fixes until 2020. I just manually installed the December 2017 rollup the other day.

I'm glad they are phasing it out at work and replacing it with Windows 10.
I use Windows 10 at work and it's awful. That flat color UI is reminiscent of Windows 3.11 running under 16 bit color. Then there's the doubling up of many UIs with metrosexual versions of the same desktop item (e.g. control panel). Even Calculator is bloated garbage that takes several seconds to start and is missing features of the old version.

The forced updates often hang during reboot on multiple workstations, and there are issues around certain things (e.g. roaming profiles) which even Microsoft reps haven't been able to resolve yet. Also the OS randomly loses the ability to copy/paste text, and Outlook 360 randomly loses the ability to be brought to the foreground.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,841
1,536
136
Absolutely. If it cost money and wasn't secretly force-installed like a root-kit, I think it'd have the same fate as Windows 8. Even after losing $billions in the phone/portable market, Microsoft still don't understand that nobody wants their telemetry metrosexual OS with its walled garden app store.

The telemetry thing is overblown. Windows has had telemetry for a long time, it's just that Microsoft became more open about it with Windows 10. Also, telemetry can be a good thing more often than not as Microsoft uses that data to improve security, stability and performance.

Eh? Windows 7 will receive security fixes until 2020. I just manually installed the December 2017 rollup the other day.

Even with the security fixes, it's never going to be as secure as Windows 10 due to the fundamental architecture of the operating system. Microsoft is continually rolling EMET into Windows 10, and with this last Creator's fall update, I think the process is now complete. That combined with the Exploit protections, makes Windows 10 much harder for malware to attack.

Personally I don't even use an AV anymore, as it's unnecessary provided you're not ignorant or stupid and have safe browsing habits.

LdyEPZ.jpg




I use Windows 10 at work and it's awful. That flat color UI is reminiscent of Windows 3.11 running under 16 bit color. Then there's the doubling up of many UIs with metrosexual versions of the same desktop item (e.g. control panel). Even Calculator is bloated garbage that takes several seconds to start and is missing features of the old version.

The forced updates often hang during reboot on multiple workstations, and there are issues around certain things (e.g. roaming profiles) which even Microsoft reps haven't been able to resolve yet. Also the OS randomly loses the ability to copy/paste text, and Outlook 360 randomly loses the ability to be brought to the foreground.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :D I don't hate Windows 7, and in fact, I used it from beta till Windows 8.1 became available. Windows 7 was a great operating system, but it's just too old at this point to serve as my primary operating system. Windows 10 is faster, more secure, more capable than Windows 7 in more ways than one. Plus I like to keep up with technology :cool:
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,056
409
126
I think that's a shame, sure, for high end/mid range gaming not really,
but for the slower PCs running a GT 1030 or the "GT 2030" in the future it's very useful.
I run win 10 32bit on quite a few PCs, when you have limited ram (like 2-4GB) it clearly helps.

if AMD makes new 32bit drivers for the RX 550 successor, that's a nice advantage.
 

BSim500

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2013
1,480
216
106
Hopefully the driver package gets smaller once they strip out the 32 bit code.

Do you think this will increase performance? I know that in 64 bit mode, SSE2 is mandatory, so they could strip out any x87 code if they are using any for 32 bit code.
I think there's some serious confusion here. There are no "all-in-one" nVidia dual 32/64 bit OS combined drivers that would "shrink". Nor have the existence of 32-bit alternative download been crippling 64-bit optimizations. nVidia have been producing 2x different downloads (eg, v388.71 = 398.51MB for 64-bit OS only / 323.46MB for 32-bit OS only). They're merely going to stop providing the 32-bit-only driver download meant for 32-bit XP / W7 / W8, etc.

Nothing will be "stripped" out of the 64-bit drivers nor are nVidia going to commit suicide by removing the ability to play 95% of games on Steam / 99% on GOG that are 32-bit, on 64-bit OS's with 64-bit drivers (which isn't just every game made since 1995-2015 ish, but also includes most modern Indie's like Cuphead, This War of Mine, Thimbleweed Park, etc). Performance won't increase for 64-bit games, nor will the 64-bit drivers shrink in size. Literally nothing whatsoever will change for the 64-bit download.

All it means is there will be no future separate 32-bit-only download, so those on 32-bit OS's will lose out on future driver updates (mostly 64-bit AAA optimizations they won't be playing anyway). And those running a 32-bit OS for compatibility reasons (eg, a retro rig for obscure 16-bit Windows 3.1 titles that won't run under DOSBox or on 64-bit OS's) can still do so by remaining on an older 32-bit driver version.
 
Last edited:

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
The telemetry thing is overblown. Windows has had telemetry for a long time, it's just that Microsoft became more open about it with Windows 10. Also, telemetry can be a good thing more often than not as Microsoft uses that data to improve security, stability and performance.
While technically true, that's not the full story. Previous telemetry (Customer Experience Improvement Program and Windows Error Reporting) was completely opt-in so nothing was sent to Microsoft.

That's completely different to sending your voice over the internet to Microsoft through Cortana searches, and injecting targeted ads into the OS by monitoring the files and programs you use. Even the most basic setting still sends data. Like I said, they're slowly turning your PC into a phone appliance.

Then there's the issue of some Windows updates mysteriously resetting your privacy settings in silence.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree :D I don't hate Windows 7, and in fact, I used it from beta till Windows 8.1 became available. Windows 7 was a great operating system, but it's just too old at this point to serve as my primary operating system. Windows 10 is faster, more secure, more capable than Windows 7 in more ways than one. Plus I like to keep up with technology :cool:
Hopefully by the time 2020 rolls around, Microsoft might've reversed some/all of their dumb decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoBeDaPlaya

Spjut

Senior member
Apr 9, 2011
928
149
106
I think that's a shame, sure, for high end/mid range gaming not really,
but for the slower PCs running a GT 1030 or the "GT 2030" in the future it's very useful.
I run win 10 32bit on quite a few PCs, when you have limited ram (like 2-4GB) it clearly helps.

if AMD makes new 32bit drivers for the RX 550 successor, that's a nice advantage.

Yeah I think this might affect more users than people think.

But I have come to heavily favor Nvidia due to their superior long term driver support for older OSes and hardware. I fixed Win10 on an old PC using Geforce 8 series and it's such a relief compared to using old AMD hardware.
Nvidia also continued supporting Vista until the 1000 series released, whereas AMD stopped already in 2013.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
I think there's some serious confusion here. There are no "all-in-one" nVidia dual 32/64 bit OS combined drivers that would "shrink". Nor have the existence of 32-bit alternative download been crippling 64-bit optimizations. nVidia have been producing 2x different downloads (eg, v388.71 = 398.51MB for 64-bit OS only / 323.46MB for 32-bit OS only). They're merely going to stop providing the 32-bit-only driver download meant for 32-bit XP / W7 / W8, etc.
There could possibly be shared code that's present in both download bundles that's only kept around for legacy/compatibility/simplicity for the 32 bit bundle.

Nothing will be "stripped" out of the 64-bit drivers nor are nVidia going to commit suicide by removing the ability to play 95% of games on Steam / 99% on GOG that are 32-bit, on 64-bit OS's with 64-bit drivers (which isn't just every game made since 1995-2015 ish, but also includes most modern Indie's like Cuphead, This War of Mine, Thimbleweed Park, etc). Performance won't increase for 64-bit games, nor will the 64-bit drivers shrink in size. Literally nothing whatsoever will change for the 64-bit download.
There's no correlation between driver bitness and program bitness. Programs hook into APIs which the OS pipes to the driver. 64 bit Windows manages 32 bit programs through WoW. The display driver doesn't care.
 

UsandThem

Elite Member
May 4, 2000
16,068
7,380
146
Locking this thread because it is an Nvidia discussion thread
that became an AMD discussion thread.

OP, if you wish to start a new thread about Nvidia 32-bit driver support,
please do so. If that one gets derailed like this one, we will take appropriate
action and give warnings.

AT Mod Usandthem



nywa49.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.