Why does Dell put a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit machine?

[whm1974]

-

Lots I am sure. And they are probably still kicking themselves in some cases.

And in a few years after release as well.

 

[Chaotic42]

That was a rather shortsighted thing to say, even back in 1981.

He almost certainly didn't say it.

 

[pcgeek11]

He denies it others swear to it... Meh.

 

[tcsenter]

He denies it others swear to it... Meh.

The context of his response had to have been the then-present architecture of IBM being discussed, which was changing every three or four years, not for the rest of time. That would be absurd.

 

[whm1974]

The context of his response had to have been the then-present architecture of IBM being discussed, which was changing every three or four years, not for the rest of time. That would be absurd.

Everyone makes dumb mistakes from time to time. And Bill Gates was proven wrong shortly just few year afterwards too.

 

[C1]

It's important that you make sure all of the software you need to run your organization is available in a 64-bit version so you can continue to use it.

For nonprofits that manage many computers, an IT department might have trouble acquiring and supporting new operating systems, drivers, and applications. It's expensive enough buying the faster hardware, but getting a second set of software licenses for 64-bit operating systems and applications might be beyond the means of an organization with a limited budget. Furthermore, nonprofits, charities, and libraries often have to deal with erratic IT budgets and donated computers, which means they're more likely to wind up with a mix of 32-bit and 64-bit machines.

In these circumstances, some organizations opt to transition gradually, upgrading hardware first, then operating systems, then applications. Other organizations focus entirely on their servers and leave their desktop machines alone. Servers typically run the most resource-intensive applications, so they see greater benefits from upgrading to a 64-bit platform.

 

[ultimatebob]

For underpowered PC's with only 2 GB of memory, 32 bit Windows still makes sense. It uses less memory than 64 bit Windows, and the OS install uses roughly half as much disk space.

 

[shortylickens]

The guy who invented CP/M said said the same thing Bill Gate did about the 8086 CPU after Intel released it. He also offer CP/M to Intel after he wrote it, but Intel refused.

I wonder how many other poor-sighted decisions were made due to thinking "nobody will ever need that" when designing hardware, operating systems, and platforms?

I think a senior guy at IBM said "no one will ever want a computer in their home". So, yeah.