I tend to agree. Moreover, there were scads of Atom N270/N280 CPU-based Netbooks sold, many of which are still in use. Not only were they 32 Bit, but non-PAE as well. AND INEXPENSIVE, e.g. AFFORDABLE by those with limited means. Furthermore, though I am APPARENTLY in the minority, you could not pay me enough to use Chrome--I detest it almost as much as IE. I prefer Chromium-engined OPERA.. Comparing resistance to upgrade from/to the various flavors of Windoz, and resistance to upgrade HARDWARE, e.g. BUYING A WHOLE NEW COMPUTER when the one you've got works just fine, is a MASSIVE case of apples to pitchforks!!
But that's how technology moves. You can still use Windows 98 today, though you won't find many people that support it. 32-bit users of Chromium have the choice to stay with the un-updated version when Google stops the 32-bit builds; or go elsewhere, use a new browser. Or, if the community somehow supports it, use the community version of a 32-bit Chromium fork. I agree that it takes money to upgrade to a 64-bit processor, but the only people that will "suffer" from that are the ones that are not prepared and/or don't know how technology works. 64-bit processors were introduced in 2003, so it's not like people didn't have time to save 30 dollars for a new processor. Even in poor countries like Brazil, where I live, a 64-bit processor can be found at 60 BRL, or 15 USD. And it's really easy to find someone who has an old 64-bit processor who is willing to trade it for something you don't use it anymore. And don't get me wrong, but 95% of people who I hear saying "I can't afford that" either: Buy expensive clothing each month, like 600 BRL Nike shoes (yes, some spend their whole month worth or payment on a pair of shoes); Go to parties every weekend and spen like 100 BRL on a vodka bottle, not counting other things; Buy expensive smartphones; etc At least here in Brazil, where most of our youth has a big problem with responsibility.
The relatively minor cost of the 64 bit CPU (whether AMD or Intel) ISN'T the problem. The cost of a whole new computer, IS. Or if you want to gut your present tower--assuming the power supply and/or IDE HDDs support it, a new 64-bit motherboard, memory sticks, probably new serial ATA HDD, power supply, etc. THAT is the problem! And if your only system is a 32 bit laptop, notebook, or netbook, then you're looking at the purchase price of a new or used 64 bit laptop, notebook, or netbook, which in the USA will be at least $300. And, Atom cpu-based netbooks and mini-towers have only been marketed and sold since 2008 (I bought my eMachines N270 based netbook in February 2010 for a heavily discounted price of $219, which damn near broke me at the time, btw)--much later than your cutoff date of 2003. From Wiki: "The Atom N2xx and Z5xx series Atom models cannot run x86-64 code."
Not necessarily that old. FYI I'm typing this on a 32-bit netbook that I bought in ~2009. It's quite usable under Linux, for most day-to-day stuff. Music, web mail, coding and compiling stuff, whatever. (Yes, it's been upgraded a bit. 2 GB of RAM, 360 GB hard disk, new heatsink and fan. You have to make sure dust doesn't accumulate on the vents... But otherwise it's very low maintenance, much more portable than a larger laptop, and has plenty of battery life.) Anyway yeah, IMO technology should serve human interests; not the other way around. "Because technology marches on" isn't a sufficient answer.
But it must march forward in order to serve us better. It sure is good using old tech that we're used to; but at some point we're all gonna have to move on, even 64-bit users. You can't expect companies to support old technology forever. Either upgrade (no matter how), or stay stationary. The "killing" of 32-bit will be gradual, so people will still have some time to upgrade. Not to mention, there are alternative browsers that still support 32-bit. Arch Linux developers will soon kill the i386 release entirely because only 10% of it's users are using it. Most will be prepared, some won't, and a very small minority can't upgrade for monetary reasons. That's unfortunate, I admit, but that's how things are. Technology can't wait for everybody to save some money in order to have hardware that complies with 13-years-old standards, and at some point it will cost companies a lot of money to support this old technology, and they'll shut support down. It happened with Windows XP, it's happenening with Chrome, will happen to Arch Linux and certainly to other Linux distros as well (in the future), and sooner than later 32-bit will be a thing of the past (it should already be considered that). And "32-bit people" aren't forced to do anything, really, anyone can still use their old stuff, like Windows XP or Play Station 2. But requiring that improvements hold everyone else back just because a small group couldn't catch on is actually quite rude and egoistic, 10% are delaying the progress of 90%, and these 90% are the ones who actually help technology move on. Sometimes we're on this group, other times not In my case, I can't expect newer games to run on my old (2009) AMD Athlon II processor, neither expect that all my 3D renderings won't consume all my 8 GB of RAM. I would be at least naive to expect that.
