How can I have Unity for Windows 32bit computers?

Hello everybody,
I'm using Windows 7 32bit computer. I can't find any 32bit download options. Can you guys help me please?
Thanks and have a nice day

 

You can't use Unity 2017.x on 32 bit computers anymore. Your best bet would be to click this link and use one of the later 5.x releases.

 

What's your processor? If you happen to have a processor with 64-bit support you could move to 64-bit Windows.

 

I imagine that anyone who's still using Win 7 32bit is using it because they have no other choice.

 

I've had it happen once or twice where an individual was on 64-bit hardware... but more likely than not he's on a system that just isn't capable of it.

 

Since x86_64 has been the standard in CPU's since 2004, this is most likely the case. If not the 32 bit OS user is in dire need of a hardware upgrade.

 

Thanks i found 32bit versions of Unity , but whats differences between newest versions?

I have Intel E7400 Core 2 Duo (2.80GHz 2 Cores, 6MB Cache)

 

The newer versions have more features for sure, and some bugs fixed.

 

It's sufficient to develop with, but as others have mentioned, a 32 bit OS is an antique.

 

Putting the fact aside that Unity stopped building 32bit builds for the editor, the main problem is RAM and "address space".
Let assume for a moment that Unity would still publish 32bit builds.

32-bit systems can only address up to 2^32 bytes (4GB) of memory even if you have more installed in your computer. The OS just won't be able to recognize/use it; and due to some other technical details the real usable space is sometimes even less than those 4GB.

When I just have my browser open, multiple visual studio instances, and Unity, I'm already at 10GB...

Sure you could close some things but a development computer generally has to be a lot more powerful than a normal users computer. Overhead from debug-assemblies, the Unity-Editor and its Profiler, extra applications that you'll need (VisualStudio or at least MonoDevelop, and maybe some image editor) all contribute.

Even if you're "just" making a small 2D game, the normal development overhead alone will quickly eat up all your RAM.

If you ask me, there's simply no way to work efficiently with less than 16GB RAM (at the very least), but that's just my personal opinion and obviously heavily depends on your workflow and tools.

 

I have 16 but I rarely use more than 4 - I tend to keep only programs I'm directly using open. Old habits die hard. My brother however, keeps 50 billion tabs open and every app known to man.

You can tell he's probably been using macs.

 

I agree, < 4 GB of RAM is going to cause problems for the developer. But do you really need 16 GB?? My laptop has 8 GB and I use as my main (mobile) dev station. I purchased it last year in the fall, and came to find out this fall that it was manufactured in 2015. I had to look up the i7-5500U processor that it has to find that out.

 

Well when I need it, it's there, and it doesn't cost anything different to have 8 or 16. 10 bucks? 20 bucks? may as well be 16.

16 is a potential limit because some form factors can't support more (small motherboards) or the system was bought with old memory they want to get rid of, so they install 2x8gb or 4x4gb or whatever.

In other cases (especially with older or cheaper ram) smaller amounts of ram was faster. These days I'm not sure it's good to base a decision around.

Generally I tend to buy or build a system and not upgrade the separate parts as generally it's diminishing returns for me (only as fast as your slowest part).

 

I'm assuming most of the people in this thread throw out their hardware every time they get something shiny.
I have 64 bit, I still use 32 bit(Not for unity anymore though).
My acceptance of dropping 32 bit Unity comes from having to keep 2 engines constantly, and equally updated.
This may or may not be a real reason it got dropped, but I don't care.
What I care about is the people that think hardware that cant run the newest CoD with max video profile is worthless.
It's not worthless, you just need to stop getting distracted by the flashing lights in commercials.
I wouldn't even need 64 bit if it wasn't for Unity, and Windows.
Also, I miss Win XP. It came on one cd. ONE CD PEOPLE!!! And it didn't take 4 gb to run windows services.

 

I agree @verybinary . I don't throw out old hardware though. I just it back in the box the new stuff came in and shelve it. Not sure if I'd ever have need for the old hardware but I keep it around.

I'm certain that Unity 5.x probably will publish 32 bit builds too. I suggest that the OP maybe download a Unity 5.x version and try it for him/herself. Don't listen to our opinions, try it out! =D

 

Well the only reason you're still 32 bit is because MS made more money still keeping 32 bit around for businesses that have nothing to do with you. This is why you have 32 bit, and why MS kept making 32 bit operating systems for a decade longer than they needed to. These businesses had 32 bit apps and were not willing to upgrade those apps

Fast forward and modern 64 bit os can handle both 32 and 64 bit just fine, fingers crossed

 

If buying some new parts saves me a lot of time in the long run i will always do it. As a result for game dev i would recommend 16gb. I can still make do on my macBook that only has 8gb's of ram but i have to work differently and it does cost me some more time.

While on my main computers, i can run Unity, Rider, Photoshop, Maya and any other supporting apps i need without issue and generally got a good 20 or 30 chrome tabs open. It really helps to have the ram to allow me to do this, it also enables me to use some of the more ram hungry features of said programs as well like solution wide analysis in Rider.

Also i am by no means dumping my computer every year for the latest and greatest, my 2 main desktops are using 3rd and 4 gen i7's and thus have processors and motherboards that are 5 to 4 years old, and the only upgrades i have made were adding ssd's and a new gpu.

also @n3pix that processor you have listed does support 64bit so the 64bit Windows 7 would run on it.
https://ark.intel.com/products/36500/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E7400-3M-Cache-2_80-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB

 

Your processor is capable of running Windows 7 64-bit. If you have the necessary discs I recommend backing up your files (because upgrading between 32-bit and 64-bit will wipe your files) and then upgrading to 64-bit.

 

How many applications do you work in simultaneously? One thing to keep in mind is that a desktop can easily have multiple monitors (laptops are capped at one external unless you have DisplayPort) and that can easily lead you to having Unity, a modelling program (eg Blender), an artwork program (eg PhotoShop), and so on.

Remember you need enough memory to handle these programs and the content you are developing in them.

Since mine are invariably way more powerful than the average rig in my area I often end up giving away my older hardware to either local rummage stores or to friends of mine and my family. At one point I was keeping it around but I eventually realized that I simply never went back to it even when my main rig experienced hardware failure.

 

Perhaps when you bought it. It's more like $80-100 for 8GB - $190 for 2x8GB for the most recent systems, $160ish for 1x16GB.

But yeah, max out the memory no matter which system you have. Your OS will use it, and you can keep more related software open at the same time (your 3D modelling, art and game development tools all at once, without swapping out of RAM). What isn't used for apps becomes disk cache, and with how smart operating systems are now that means a little more performance boost when using the same assets over and over.

A Core 2 Duo system uses DDR2 RAM, though, which is much more expensive when you can even get it. It's probably best to upgrade to a DDR4 system nowadays. Even a mid-range laptop will be an improvement over many CPUs of that era.

 

Here are ten 1GB DDR2-800 sticks for $15 with free shipping.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/LOT-OF-10-...FV-aT0:sc:USPSFirstClass!24551!US!-1#shpCntId

 

Not sure I trust those

 

also how would that even help, most computers only have 4 dimms

 

That listing was the cheapest from a reputable company.

https://candielectronics.com/

 

I would want some way of at least editing and compiling games using a tablet that has 2gb and Windows 10 32 bit but a 64 bit CPU. I know that's not much mem but I ran the older Unity on there, but I don't want to have to downgrade my project just to use the editor. There should be some way to compile Unity scenes 1. without needing the Editor just for the compile and 2. even on a 32-bit OS as long as the CPU is 64 bit.

 

Or Unity can not dump support into an architecture that barely even exists anymore.

 

Thing is making a company support that use case just so you can avoid using a device fit for purpose just hurts other users. Time would be better spent on things that matter.

Theres a reason 32bit is disappearing.

Thats called 32bit. it doesnt matter what your cpu is, if its running 32bit OS it is 32bit, and means supporting an entirely seperate architecture.

You should not be using a 2gb tablet with 32bit OS for development, I am sorry but times have moved on and it really is that simple.

 

Upgrade the OS. There is no downside to running a 64-bit OS on a system that only has 4 GB RAM or less. If a CPU supports 64-bit there is very little reason to stick to 32-bit. Compatibility with 16-bit apps is the only advantage and that's worthless.

 

HI!!!MY CPU IS 32 BIT BUT SUPPOPTS 64 BIT!!!IF YOU DON'T TRUST ME CHECK THIS \/
SORRY ITS GREEK...
BUT CHECK WERE IT SAYS Επεξεργαστής = (Prossesor) says Operating system 32bit, prossesor technologie, x64
BECAUSE MY PROSSESOR IS FROM 2006!!!

 

IT WAS REALLY SIMPLE ANS SHORT VIDEO...


BUT THE INSTALLATION TAKES FOR.........................................EVER

 

Stop typing in all caps. Also it does not matter if the installation takes a long time, you can not run modern versions of Unity on a 32 bit OS.

 

What do you expect with such an old computer? Professional development tools generally assume you'll have modern hardware.

 

Yes, well, that's completely expected from a PC that is from the era when 32-bit OSes were the norm. Any computer old enough to have come with a 32-bit OS is basically an antique at this point. A high-end processor from a decade ago will be barely usable today regardless of how powerful and expensive it was back then. Same for the HDD and RAM.

By comparison a modern budget build, with a solid state drive and USB 3.0 ports, can install Windows 10 64-bit within a ten minute time period. Core 2 Duos were great several years back but they're not practical today, and it's only compounded by having low memory and spinning rust drives.

What's worse is that when this thread was created four core processors with minor yearly upgrades were the norm, but we've moved past that into an era where core counts appear to be doubling every two years with both companies pushing per-core performance as hard as they can.

Just like I can't do anything practical on my C64 soon computers more than a few years old will be completely worthless.

 

I had to double check, but yeah, that CPU turned 13 years old this month.

 

It is probably not so clear cut.

Till roughly a month or two ago I was sitting on fx6300 cpu which was released in 2012. It was probably the longest running cpu on my computer, but it could run plenty of modern games.

So, I'd say there are exceptions from the "useless past few years" rule.

The main issue is that software bloat increases with time and at some point it will be impossible to have decent performance unless you're using TinyCore linux for desktop. I had a lot of fun installing Cinnamon linux on much older system with Amd Athlon 64 x2 and 2 gigabyte of Ram. The main issue is that the computer had no cd-rom drive and was running a 12 years old gigabyte motherboard which could not boot from a flash drive. That was fun, although unetbootin resolved the situation.

 

Agreed, but with that said there is a difference between running games on older processors and running professional apps because the former are generally designed around a low-end machine (PlayStation and Xbox) whereas the latter are made to do a task and let the user deal with the performance penalties that come with it.

 

Decent point about the CPU, but there's a big difference between a CPU made in 2012 and one made in 2006, and with 4 GB of RAM in the machine it appears the rest of the machine is from 2006 as well. I'd expect Mr Stuck Capslock would have a somewhat better experience even with the ancient CPU if it had 16 GB of RAM and an Evo 860. With 4GB on RAM on Win 10 it is probably just thrashing the swap file on the HDD through the entire Unity install process.

 

My i5 750 from 2009 ran Unity just fine, although that did have an SSD and 24gb ram (so much for the 16gb limit). I wouldn't have bothered upgrading if someone hadn't given me a i7-4790k system for free.

 

The limit at the time was most likely due to the maximum capacity per stick than an actual limit for the CPU. We're at the tail end of DDR4 but that hasn't stopped stupidly large DIMMs from appearing on the market. Like this insane 128GB stick that costs about $1,000. If it could accept it you could max out a Ryzen 3000 with just one of them.

https://www.amazon.com/Supermicro-MEM-DR412L-SL02-LR26-1x128GB-Reduced-LRDIMM/dp/B07FTT3PLD

 

I don't really understand how ram works, but I think there is something more than just that going on. I actually have 4x8gb chips, but it would only show 16gb with all of those chips in. It actually took several tries to find a combination of 2x8gb + 2x4gb that would register 24gb instead of 16gb.

 

Modern CPUs are 64-bit meaning in theory they can address 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes but in reality they have a limited number of wires and that's what determines the maximum they can address. Additionally you have the internal design of the memory management circuit, the design of the wires on the board, etc.

Basically you most likely ran into a weird edge case, and the manufacturer either didn't know it was possible or didn't want to warranty it because they couldn't guarantee everyone could do it. Motherboard makers tend to go for the most common use cases and anything else is up to the end user to discover.