The good old days reviewed. That should help some folk understand a little
more. Like you I run 32 and 64 to be able to run all software. It a good
test bed.



--
Ian

"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:40F9CAE0-1C32-4642-A07D-3E02AC3B9FA8@microsoft.com...
> "Rob" <landrobert@gmail.com> wrote ...
>>I am being told by some experts that there is no 64-bit
>> OS that works as advertised, Vista chief among them. The processor
>> manufacturers are actually out in front of the software developers here.
>> Can someone confirm this ?
>
> Hey Rob,
>
> I doubt anyone can "confirm" this, because it's largely a matter of
> opinion; rather than right/wrong fact. Get ready for a storm of
> unsubstantiated opinions in the replies :-)
>
> FWIW, I've been running 64-bit Vista on my main desktop machine since the
> Vista beta programme, 12+ months ago. I am very happy with 64-bit Vista,
> it works well. All my devices have drivers, and all my apps all work fine.
> But, I'm a reasonably proficient user; and willing to absorb some pain to
> be on the bleeding edge. I also happen to have a 32-bit laptop permanently
> within reach, for those few occassions when only 32-bits will do (eg,
> running old 16-bit DOS and Win3.x apps).
>
> Hardware has *always* been somewhat in advance of software; that's just
> the nature of the beast. As a period of transition, today closely
> resembles the move from 16-bits to 32-bits, circa 1992 (when 32 bit OS/2
> 2.0 shipped) to 1996 (when Windows 95 overtook Windows 3.x in sales). The
> first Intel 32-bit 80386 CPU was introduced in 1986, before even Windows
> 2.03 shipped, let alone 32-bit Windows NT or 95. Lots of folks continued
> to happily run 16-bit Windows 3.x on 386 CPUs for many years, until
> Windows 95 made 32-bit Windows desktops near-universal, and 8086/80286
> machines vanished from the shelves. Today, it's almost impossible to buy a
> new computer with a 32-bit CPU; they're nearly all 64-bit capable. It's
> just a matter of time for 64 bit Windows (and Mac OS X, and Linux, and
> Solaris) to become standard across the board. There will be a bumpy
> transitition period for a couple of years, then we'll look back and laugh
> about when we all ran 32-bit computers.
>
> Plenty of mainframe users today run 31-bit OS/390 on 64-bit zSeries
> architecture, and fret about the transition to 64 bit z/OS. The problem is
> not unique to the PC world!
>
> The main thing is: 64-bit isn't intrinsically "good", in and of itself.
> It's only "good" to the extent that it makes the computer a useful tool.
> If a user's situation is such they are better off running 32-bit Windows,
> then that's absolutely what they should be using. Hell, there are plenty
> of machines running DOS even today, tucked away in dark corners, quietly
> running apps that have been useful since 1987. With the general move to
> rich multimedia data handling on PCs and the enormous objects this
> involves, plus cheap massive storage (1 Terbyte hard disks are now a
> consumer item), and cheap memory (4GB RAM is becoming common) there will
> be many opportunities for 64-bit applications to be truly useful in the
> coming years.
>
> That's my 2 cents ... :-)
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
>