On Fri, 2022-10-14 at 01:51 -0700, Aaron Hill wrote: > On 2022-10-14 12:18 am, J Martin Rushton wrote: > > For some reason best known to Microsoft Windows held > > systems down in 32-bit node for years after they were internally > > 64- > > bit. > > Microsoft did not "hold systems down". In the era of XP, Windows > came > in a 64-bit version, colloquially known as XP64. The main issue was > that most consumers at that time only had access to 32-bit hardware, > so > it was not a priority to market 64-bit support. > > Over time, computer manufacturers have made 64-bit hardware the > norm; > but as anyone with IT experience knows: clients are rarely eager to > spend money upgrading when things are not completely broken. (And > even > then when the office is on fire, some are still stingy.) So > notwithstanding the average home user facing rising costs of new > computers, Microsoft has many business, educational, and government > customers that would all have to get aboard the 64-bit train. > > As I recall, Windows 10 was supposed to launch as 64-bit only; yet > even > it still has an installation option to run on 32-bit processors. It > is > looking like Windows 11 will be the first release to draw the line > in > the sand and cut off old hardware. > > > -- Aaron Hill Perhaps then trying to source XP64 would be a solution for the OP?
Maybe it was the supply chain that shipped 32-bit XP on 64-bit machines or maybe MS didn't want to push it for some reason? The fact remains that in the XP era there were plenty of 64-bit machines hamstrung by a 32-bit OS. -- J Martin Rushton MBCS
