安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
That's a lot but how many of them actually have a PC to run these games.
I've seen an user on steam forum constantly requesting 32 bit support while he have a massive computer.
At this point, he should have just reinstalled the OS in 64.
So many instal it in 32 and yet they don't even know the difference!
Like which ones? They would sell games that doesn't even work on 64 bits then? With all the game I have on Steam, I don't even know they had lol.
Some still think that 64 bit can't run 32 bit programs. Other then that, they may have upgraded their OS from a 32 bit to another 32 bit, as they didn't want to lose everything they have.
The only facts we have though, is that 1.2% still use a 32 bit OS.
A very large amount of games are still in 32 bit. Check a games system requirements. If it doesn't state 64 bit as a requirement, then it only requires 32 bit CPU and OS.
32 bit programs run fine on a 64 bit OS, but the reverse does not... that is, unless you remove the 32 bit binaries in the OS like Apple is.
Because Windows still provides the 32bit interface in addition to the 64bit. Removing it has zero benefits for the user.
It makes sense for Apple as they want to control their machines as much as possible "for the best experience" and they deiberately break backwards compatibility with OS updates.
Microsoft on the other hand want people to use their newest OS and there is a LOT of specialised commercial software which is fully functional but barely supported anymore or that works under the premise "don't fix what isn't broken". There is a reason why you see e.g. displays for public transport displaying Windows Server 2000 bluescreens or hospitals running Windows XP which as we have seen not long ago is a bg security risk because exploits don't get fixed. Imaging the costs and torubles having to update a custom hospital software to 64 bit exclusive just to be able to support a newer OS version to avoid another WannaCry.
I agree.. that is about the sum of it. I wonder how people would react if this was Microsoft making that decision with the next update of windows 10...
Sure, given a choice no one will opt to break compatibility. But if it happens only a small minority will be affected.
It's not gonna happen with Windows though, not for a while, too much dependence in Enterprise for legacy software.
Honestly, I'm surprised how quickly things are being superseded or obsoleted because of that. I've occasionally seen 95 installs on jobs. They have some piece of software they bought back then that became the heart of the company, and if it dies, they're screwed.
Thankfully, I still remember how to fix those ancient boxes. Part replacement is getting a little tricky.
At least they don't network the things. The cylons would be on them in a heartbeat.
Tons of my games on CD won't even run giving a cannot run 32bit error.
Yep, my company has been feeling that pain. And we're working on re-writing that black box software from scratch while simultaneously nursing the old software along and adding features to it. It's a recipe for efficiency >_>, but it also is what it is.
The business unit has constant needs and demands, and they're not worry about catastrophe until their back is against the wall. Then they're all ready and willing to play ball and cooperate with us developers on a reasonable timeline.
Well there's some details you're omitting there. I would bet if you listed the titles, you can get most of them running on current PC's. The issue could be the installer on the CD-ROM or something like that.
The short of it is Muppet is right and your response isn't really a compelling argument against his, it's just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.