It's not that I worry about Microsoft disabling the 32-bit subsystem, but sysadmins doing so due to "security concerns" and "best practices" similar to what happened with 16-bit. Granted, back when many sysadmins started doing that, they quickly found out a number of software used in their facilities stopped working -- although the software was 32-bit, some software still had dependencies on 16-bit components. I suspect that we'd end up with a similar problem if 32-bit subsystem were to be disabled (and I suspect that the problem may end up being more acute than when 16-bit was subsystem was disabled in 32-bit OS).

>32 bit
>
>No way will that get disabled in any near future version. There is way too much 32 bit software still out there - including current version applications. I cannot see a scenario where Microsoft would intend on breaking their backwards compatibility story that's been so carefully maintained over 40 years.
>
>Open up task manager go to the Details tab and add `Platform` then sort by that. On my machine it looks like about 40% of the running processes on my machine - including quite a few Windows internal bits - are running 32 bit.
>
>32 bit is baked closely into Windows and it's not a problem in the way that 16bit was (because that had very real memory constraints which 32 bit doesn't really have (unless you're Visual Studio) ) and while it's a good idea to use 64 bit if you can (say in .NET), it's not something I would ever worry about much. Heck, as long as Windows Server supports the 32 bit subsystem (and it does) there's no chance that desktop will stop supporting it. Server is always the canary in the coal mine for OS features.