Valve has previously said that 32-bit Windows installations represent around 0.01% of active Steam systems.
I feel like it’s fair to sunset 32-bit Windows support if this segment represents 0.01% of your installed base
Great, now do Linux
This is not negotiable. (It must happen.)
To be clear, 32-bit games will continue to work.
No! My Compaq Presario!
What’s the benefit, besides having older 32-bit libraries installed and be dependent on them? I mean is there any other technical benefit of 64-bit only? It could use more than 4gb of RAM, but for Steam itself this shouldn’t be needed.
Benefit of 64-bit only? They don’t have to develop and test everything for two architectures, and if there are CPU extensions only available on 64-bit processors, they can start using them now.
They don’t need to test two architectures, if there is only 32-bit. So that’s not a real point. And CPU extensions for a basically shop? Alright the Steam app is not just a store, that’s true, but it’s not like a game or low level library itself. So I am not sure if additional 64-bit only CPU extensions is a great reason.
I’m not convinced at the moment that this is a huge win. The biggest reason is being dependent on the older libraries, which in some environments is just nasty. I am also not against 64-bit only. It is just surprising how much demanding some users are and how hugely celebrated this is, if it actually doesn’t matter much in real world. As said, besides the library thing.
With windows 11 not supporting 32 bit the librarys will slowly start become stale and more work would need to be done to upgrade or patch issues that arise. In theory any program should be forward compatible but steam is still active and needs to be a moving target. but what would be the point supporting an architecture that the os isn’t even supporting.
That is not what i was asking. I’m not negative here (if it sounds like). Besides supporting legacy old 32 bit libraries, are there reasons why someone want to go 64-bit only?
But what part does apply to the Steam app itself? I am aware of benefits of 64-bit. If you guys don’t know or don’t want to answer, then why even bother with replies like these? What is the 64-bit executable worth for the Steam app specifically? Besides getting rid of old libraries. Does the steam app has any benefits from 64-bit?
You did not ask about steam specifically, I’ll Google that for you as well. Why is Steam moving to full 64-bit and dropping 32-bit OS support?
Future versions of Steam will only support 64-bit OS’ moving forward. Why? The simple answer is that planned platform upgrades and core features of Steam rely on drivers and other libraries that only support 64-bit OS’. Future versions of Steam will only support 64-bit OS’. That means that users of 32-bit OS’ should upgrade their systems. Valve recommends that users do this “sooner rather than later”.
You can join the discussion on Steam’s 64-bit upgrade on the OC3D Forums. https://overclock3d.net/news/software/steam-has-finally-upgraded-to-64-bit/
Some bug and issues only appear on 32-bit architectures, so you do have to test for both. Which is a strain, for only such a amall userbase.
New instructions and only having to deal with one codebase are big, but there are some fringe reasons regarding security that I could see also being a factor. A 32-bit processor means something like a thunderbird athlon on the high end, maybe an old Pentium 4. Single core and pushing 30 in the best cases. You need an operating system that supports that chip, and there really is only so much you can do to make that setup even work in 2025.
It’s more a matter of why support that? Trying to run steam on a single core Athlon from 2000 would be painfully slow, to the point of being unusable. You couldn’t reasonably even keep steam running with a game, it would hog too much CPU. It’s possible to try it if you have an ancient tower laying around (don’t use your real steam account online with something like windows XP, it will be compromised in seconds connecting to the internet).
People with systems like that are going to need to use gog installers or use period accurate methods to install games. 32-bit only processors were already on the chopping block when steam came out, they really can’t handle modern steam. It would be a bit unreasonable to expect them to add a separate version for those chips, especially with the vulnerable operating systems they require going online being an issue, so we are left with a vestigial feature of 32-bit support for no great reason.
It really just makes more sense to cut it than keep it for the sake of novelty. There is some liability in keeping it, as well as technical overhead.
Sorry for the ramble.
From my anecdotal experience (and this was from 3-4 years), the last remaining 32-bit Windows installations are on much newer CPUs (from 2009-2014) than the last 32-bit only CPUs from 2004 or so.
Typically there are cases where the users aren’t technically inclined, they just need a basic web browser, a video player and a PDF reader. They have a computer that works, so why bother with paying money for a new one?
Typically users of Steam would figure out that they do have a 64-bit capable CPU, they would buy some RAM and re-install Windows (or find someone who can do this for them).
