Are you still using 32-bit plugins on PC?

[Tj Shredder]

So I guess what developers are really looking for are those people who say "I can't purchase your product unless there is a 32 Bit version".

Are there enough of those people to justify the development time and support resources to continue making 32 bit versions? I guess that's up to each developer and the time and resources they have on hand.

I guess those who still run a 32-bit OS or host either have bought already, or never will, as they did not within the last 10 years.
You can‘t expect that every update will fit more than 8 year old systems. But you can still use the old version. You already got what you payed for...
I don‘t see a problem delivering a last 32-bit version and then move on...

[layzer]

i began using and prefer EnergyXT2 as my DAW several years ago, it never got to the 64bit realm and so i never had the need or desire to go beyond 32bit os, daw or plugins to make the music i like. (electro) however
i'm perfectly happy with the free and old 32bit tools i have collected therefor i dont care if devs stop making 32bit vsts.

[kvotchin]

Yes, I still use some 32-bit plugins. In a 64-bit host though.

[chk071]

I think the big issue I'd have with those old computers still running 32-bit OS's and DAW's would be that they simply lack processing power. If done right, 64-bit plugins also take less CPU in my experience.

[Pacific05]

No, I have JBridge on my pc but I don't use 32-bit plugins anymore, probably for a couple of years.
Now that I think about it, I'm going to search for Tweakbench little plugins and their beautiful UI

[jamcat]

My view is that someone who is still running a 32-bit host is not someone who purchases new software. They haven't purchased new software in a very long time; perhaps never.
As a developer, you needn't be concerned with those people, because they are not going to be your customers.

I've used 64 bit Reaper for 32 bit plugins for years in linux.
I own around 70% of what U-he, NI, IK, BlueCat, Cakewalk,
KV331 and discoDSP have on Offer, and use them all,
while enjoying great 32 bit products that have no equal at 64 bit.

Great products get purchased and used, and backed up
to insure future use. Bit numbers mean little or nothing for the vast
majority of musical use cases. I have a dozen presets in
a dozen synths that I would not give up just because bits.
Same with crucial capabilities that I enjoy and rely on
I love 64 bit U-he products, but nothing they make has midi-out
(yet... )

But you are using a 64-bit host. So you in fact don't need plugin developers to continue to support 32-bit for new plugins. You would do just fine with 64-bit only.

Anyone who needs 32-bit plugins is using a 32-bit host. If there isn't a 64-bit version of their DAW, it is only because their DAW is over a decade old. If they haven't upgraded their DAW in over a decade, then chances are low they are going to purchase new plugins either.

[Teksonik]

I don‘t see a problem delivering a last 32-bit version and then move on...

I not only don't see a problem with it I would prefer it as I'm all 64 bit now.

But if developers are selling enough 32 bit versions to make it worthwhile then why not.

The only argument those of us who no longer use 32 bit plugins can make is that any time spent on them is time not spent on 64 bit versions, updates, upgrades etc.

I'm not even sure that's a valid argument because who knows how much extra work maintaining and supported 32 bit versions really is and if they're bringing in enough revenue to make it worthwhile again why not.

My gut feeling is that 32 bit plugins are more trouble than they're worth to small developers but only they would know for sure. The fact this Poll was started might be a good indication....

[Halonmusic]

Yes.

As always there are those who couldnt care less about about anything but their own needs, but some of us have good reasons for using 32bit, and we definitely appreciate not being left standing in the rain only because other people prefer 64bit.

In my view, as long as there isnt anything that technically prevents it, there is absolutely no reason not to have both and give everyone what they need.

This.

[Halonmusic]

Wags, what daw do you use?

The evil Cubase. Need I say more?

Ah ok.

Just thought because 32bit plugins run great in bws and reaper.

I bought Cubase because somebody told me it was the best (ha, ha). I've been using it for 6 years. I know it inside and out. I can't switch to another DAW without going through a massive learning curve that I am just not willing to go through at my age. So I am stuck with Cubase.

Again, my choice. We make choices and we have to live with them.

You should try reaper. Im mainly using ext3 but decided to try reaper last year. Really fast learning curve, easy to navigate does everything i want. it also has a great bridge for 32bit plugins, although i use the 32bit version of reaper but wanted to point it out since you love hg fortunes synths and cant use them in cubase.

[EnGee]

Even famous bands have moved from old hardware (they did hits with!) to new ones and some people here are still chaining themselves with old rusty computers and software (bleh!)
No need for even such polls! 64bit only plugins please! (how many downvotes I will get? )

[Saukar30]

I like hosts that still support 32 bit. Some of that stuff is just beyond comparison (SQ8L, Bootsy Plugins). At the same time, I use 64 bit hosts & mostly 64 bit VSTS because most of my music is sample based and I love the extra allocation of ram. The synths I have I could care less, but that's mostly because I'm not a heavy user & haven't seen a situation where 64 bit synths have made a difference in my music where I maybe use 10 instances of a synth per song.

Mind you, I have been making music on the computer since 1998, so I am more than used to technology changing and learning to adapt. For me the bigger issue is this "64-bit quality means use all the computer ram" mentality that has developed because of the 32/64 switch. At this point, developers should be able to make quality plugins that don't eat your computer resources for lunch.

[jamcat]

The only argument those of us who no longer use 32 bit plugins can make is that any time spent on them is time not spent on 64 bit versions, updates, upgrades etc.

I'm not even sure that's a valid argument because who knows how much extra work maintaining and supported 32 bit versions really is and if they're bringing in enough revenue to make it worthwhile again why not.

My gut feeling is that 32 bit plugins are more trouble than they're worth to small developers but only they would know for sure. The fact this Poll was started might be a good indication....

You are exactly right. Testing, maintenance, and support take up the lion's share of resources for a well supported software. Each format/platform that is supported increases the necessary man hours. All developers have finite resources, particularly audio software developers.

Those finite resources must be divided across all of the tasks. Unless it is a very small developer (one-man operation) the development team and the testing/support team are not going to be the same people. Testing takes the most time, and when the testing team has to test 10 different versions of a plugin instead of 5 different versions, this means either customers have to wait twice as long for an update, or they get software that is only half-tested.

You will recognize both scenarios from your experiences with your audio software. All developers make this choice, and it is in large part due to the high number of formats and platforms that need to be tested for every update.

I am a very big proponent for stripping down supported formats for this reason. Developers should only be supporting 64-bit VST3, AU and AAX on OSX and Windows. That is still 5 formats right there. It's past time to cut VST2.4 and 32-bit in all forms loose.

Someone who is not going to put in the money to upgrade their computer and/or DAW to something 64-bit from the past decade is not going to put money into new plugins to help keep your software company afloat.

[NikkiA]

jBridge works both ways. If you have a 32bit host, you can run 64bit plugins. Works great. I can open old hosts and open old projects and add 64bit plugins.

Only on a 32-bit host under a 64-bit OS, jBridge cannot execute 64-bit plugins on a 32-bit OS.

Which I suspect is the majority of the 32-bit holdouts, many of whom are probably on XP or windows 7 from the time when you had to purchase the 32 or 64-bit version.

Personally, I use 64-bit almost universally, except where there are plugins that have no 32 64-bit version (which are usually old synthedit plugins). That said yesterday I discovered that the 32bit version of PolyGAS is *slightly* more reliable in my hosts than the 64bit version, so there's that.

[Doc Brown]

My main reason is that sq8l is not 64 bit and for whatever reasons devs refuse to emulate ensoniq but we get the same old washed up analog classics. Don't get me wrong I love the old classics but that is a small sonic sample size in the realm of synths. Why we can't have a modern day ensoniq emulation is strange but I'll use the old sq8l for now. Entitled rant over.

[Teksonik]

In my view, as long as there isnt anything that technically prevents it, there is absolutely no reason not to have both and give everyone what they need.

I don't think the question is whether it's technically possible but whether it's financially viable to keep developing 32 bit plugins.

If a developer is not seeing a return on his investment of time and effort then that would be a reason to drop 32 bit support.

I'm not saying that's the case since I'm not privy to developer's spreadsheets but judging by the Poll numbers at the time of this post it may indicate that 32 bit support is possibly not worth the effort.

But like I said the Poll numbers are so small at this point that it might not be a true indication of the number of sales that could be lost by dropping 32 bit support.