POLL : Is 32-bit Plugins support/availability still required today (for upcoming products) ?

[Teksonik]

I love Win XP 32,

I still keep a WinXP computer around for a single task...to run Battlefield 2 which I have always liked.

I used to run Modern Warfare on that machine too until Steam stopped supporting WinXP and the game stopped working.

So I have seen first hand how time marches on......

[xhunaudio]

It seems some people found the original thread title sort of "misleading".

I changed this thread title, so now it should be clearer : Is 32-bit Plugins support/availability still required today?

[Burillo]

is the effort to support outdated platform worth getting a tiny amount of sales from retrogrades that haven't moved on? i think not.

[jancivil]

It's like this for me, if there ever occurs a project where I need the one or two things which only exist as 32-bit plugins, I have VE Pro which has a 32-bit 'server' application which will run alongside the 64-bit one. And here I see there are only 2: GSi Mr Ray and GS201. Which aren't really compelling today for me, apparently.

for me as to the marketplace, don't bother. I moved to 64-bit in 2011 with small exceptions, the one I used all the time I quit doing.

[vsinger]

I'm still in 32bit, because i have working setup, with hundreds of plugins, a lot of them are unique and 32bit only. And i also often have to return to my old projects, so i have to maintain this 32bit setup.

This year i installed 64bit version of Daw, made vst64 folder and started building 64bit system. Dont want to use bridges, so i try to find alternatives to 32bit discontinued plugins.

To give you example there is old multidelay Charsiesis, its great and therу is no 64bit alternatives.

[BONES]

i don't know if that's a really valid example. Buying a cheaper processor is mostly about a decent price/performance ratio.

I didn't make the decision in order to save money, per se, I made the decision because I believed it was all the computer I needed to do the job. I had been running a Core i7 laptop with 16GB of RAM, then I bought a four year old Surface Pro 2 on eBay for $200 and I was startled at how well it performed by comparison. It made me see that my relentless pursuit of the latest and greatest had become pointless so I went for a lower spec when I was ready to buy my next laptop.

There's no real valid reason to still use 32-bit, apart from compatibility. Or religious belief.

By the same token, I am yet to find a valid reason to use 64 bit so that argument cuts both ways.

... and if you are working with any kind of multi media (photography, film, MUSIC) ... you want the ram access and 64 bit rendering.

No, I don't. I managed doing film and TV work for 10-12 years on machines with less than 1GB of RAM just fine. 8GB might give me slightly improved performance over the 4GB I had on my last machine but it's not enough that I can actually tell the difference. In fact, when I shifted backwards from 16GB RAM on a Core i7 to 4GB on a Core i5, the difference was way, way less than I had expected.

For audio quality 32-bit resolution is plain enough. The only problem which we had was sample exact allocation of audio files (would get wrong after about 6 minutes), and denormalisation of some code which would eat CPU for breakfast to get 64-bit precision into very low audio levels which no human is able to hear anyway...
In 64-bit you don‘t need to care about that anymore in your code...

I don't know that this was ever a problem, as it has always been possible for a 32 bit plugin to work in 64 bit internally. AFAIK, most hosts and plugins had been doing that for years before 64 bit OSes became popular enough that they could provide pure 64 bit versions.

[chk071]

I didn't make the decision in order to save money, per se, I made the decision because I believed it was all the computer I needed to do the job.

Well, exactly. That's not a valid argumentation for the use of 32-bit plugins or hosts. Unless you only use 32-bit plugins.

There's no real valid reason to still use 32-bit, apart from compatibility. Or religious belief.

By the same token, I am yet to find a valid reason to use 64 bit so that argument cuts both ways.[/quote]

How about the ability to use more memory, or the fact that properly written 64-bit applications boot and run faster? Or being future proof, because your applications won't stop to support obsolete tech one day?

Really, i don't even think this requires much of a discussion. The people who still use 32-bit apps should go on to do so. One day it will simply not be possible anymore.

[Teksonik]

I am yet to find a valid reason to use 64 bit

To keep from getting left behind when new 64 bit only plugins are released.

Anyway we have 64 bit hardware and 64 bit Operating Systems so why not use 64 bit software ?

I can't think of one 32 bit plugin I miss. Sure there are a couple that would be nice to be updated for nostalgic reasons but if I really wanted to use them I would simply bridge them in Reaper. But I don't so that tells me they aren't really needed at all.

So deciding to go all 64 bit is simply a decision to keep pace with current technology. Same reason I decided to drop my old Atari ST systems and move to PC many years ago....

[grdh20]

I'm still using some 32 bit plugins on my mac via 32 lives, but as of later this year osx will kill 32 bit and 32 lives won't work. Not the end of the world, but some old projects will be hard to work on. I still like having a 32 bit bridge. And some old odds and ends mac apps that again will have to say bye bye.

[Tj Shredder]

I'm still using some 32 bit plugins on my mac via 32 lives, but as of later this year osx will kill 32 bit and 32 lives won't work. Not the end of the world, but some old projects will be hard to work on. I still like having a 32 bit bridge. And some old odds and ends mac apps that again will have to say bye bye.

Just do not upgrade! Apple is asking for trouble - it will be a desaster!

[chk071]

I'm still using some 32 bit plugins on my mac via 32 lives, but as of later this year osx will kill 32 bit and 32 lives won't work.

Are you sure about that? I mean, i don't really know how such plugin wrappers work, but, i was under the impression that they're actually 64-bit applications, and that's why 64-bit hosts can load them. Of course, i don't know what they do internally, and whether or not they need something Apple will kill off.

[Jace-BeOS]

The most recently I dealt with 32-bit plugins:

• exporting audio from 32-bit-only plugins, on Snow Leopard (where I still run Logic mostly in 32-bit), into Logic X versions of the same projects, so that I don’t ever have to deal with missing plugins in my Logic X projects. In one case, I’ll be trying to replace QuadraSID with InSIDious (Reaktor ensemble).

• installing a pile of Windows-only VSTs onto my recently repaired Receptor. They’re of course all 32-bit. These plugins almost exclusively came from a PC I no longer use and a DVD backup I created from 2011 (around when the Receptor’s PSU died).

The Receptor is the only place I’ll use 32-bit plugins any more on current projects, and that’s as audio, treating the Receptor as an external MIDI synth (or FX processor). So, once I finish converting all my Logic 9 projects to Logic X, it’ll be 64-bit plugins all the way from here on out.

[BONES]

Well, exactly. That's not a valid argumentation for the use of 32-bit plugins or hosts. Unless you only use 32-bit plugins.

Of course it is, as the whole point of 64bit is to increase your computing power. If I don't need a Core i7 processor, I certainly don't need 64 bit.

How about the ability to use more memory, or the fact that properly written 64-bit applications boot and run faster?

First of all, I don't need to address more memory, so that's not a valid reason. More importantly, my 64 bit system is much, much slower to load and run projects so, if that's a reason, it's a reason to stick with 32 bit.

Or being future proof, because your applications won't stop to support obsolete tech one day?

That's only an issue because fools like you accept it as inevitable and desirable.

Really, i don't even think this requires much of a discussion. The people who still use 32-bit apps should go on to do so. One day it will simply not be possible anymore.

Not surprising, thinking for yourself is clearly not one of your strengths.

[reggie1979]

EDIT: n/m.

I was not aware that there are still so many illogical myths surrounding x64.

Let me say this: If you are against x64 IN ANY MATTER, WAY SHAPE OR FORM then you are a prehistoric dinosaur INCAPABLE of understanding the 21st century.

Had to change to a negative mindset since people STILL don't understand why x64 is important.

Luckily, most (overwhelmingly) developers are not "creationists" and understand why it's a thing.

[ckam03]

Well, exactly. That's not a valid argumentation for the use of 32-bit plugins or hosts. Unless you only use 32-bit plugins.

Of course it is, as the whole point of 64bit is to increase your computing power. If I don't need a Core i7 processor, I certainly don't need 64 bit.

How about the ability to use more memory, or the fact that properly written 64-bit applications boot and run faster?

First of all, I don't need to address more memory, so that's not a valid reason. More importantly, my 64 bit system is much, much slower to load and run projects so, if that's a reason, it's a reason to stick with 32 bit.

Or being future proof, because your applications won't stop to support obsolete tech one day?

That's only an issue because fools like you accept it as inevitable and desirable.

Really, i don't even think this requires much of a discussion. The people who still use 32-bit apps should go on to do so. One day it will simply not be possible anymore.

Not surprising, thinking for yourself is clearly not one of your strengths.

Thinking for yourself doesn't seem to be a strength either if you think more memory isn't a valid reason to use a 64 bit operating system. I'm not sure why you keep using 64 bit, RAM, and CPU as if they are all interchangeable.