“Why a Purely 64-Bit Windows Would be Faster and Better: Lessons from Apple’s Catalina”

Apple is already purely 64-bit without 32-bit support from macOS (I suspect) Catalina, and I personally have not noticed the problem, nor do I know anyone with an Apple who would lose must-have software. Yes, one program stopped working for me, but its creator created a new version and the upgrade was a few quid, so I have no problem with it again, at least the unnecessary old ballast was removed from the code. So if the same thing happens on PC, then only good, there is no reason to use 32 bit SW in 64 bit OS on 64 bit CPU. At least it will force MS to finally drop the pointless backwards compatibility from 30 years ago (why do I have the manual search for drivers in Windows 10 as the default floppy drive A: in the dialog, when the floppy drive has not been used since sometime in 2002 (so I stopped using it at that time to use, my Mac at the time didn’t even have it anymore).edit: otherwise, Apple announced two years in advance that 32-bit support would end, in Mojave there was a message for these old programs that they wouldn’t work in the next version without an update, and indeed, it stopped working in the next version. For people who need 32 bit SW, Mojave is still supported, for others (I count 99.9%) there is further development. And it’s the same on mobile, iOS hasn’t supported 32 bit for so long I can’t even remember and Android hasn’t for a while either. Windows is nothing different, so of course it would work there too. Just like with Apple, there would be a few squealing old-timers who would quickly die down and realistically no one would even notice the transition. And if it turns out like Apple, a purely 64-bit Windows will be significantly faster than the previous one with 32-bit support.

The opinion was edited 1x, the last time on 05/22/2023 19:07