Your understanding of computer history is inaccurate to say the least.
Software needs was always the pushing factor in hardware.. and hardware
always was behind from day one, when they were trying to crack German codes
in WWII.

If you are talking about windows, well windows vista especially is a bloat
monster badly written badly coded and badly redesigned. All changes from
winXP were bad... and they call this an improvement. Vista is 10 years
behind what could be done with technology and is a joke. The mere fact that
you accept using such an OS shows how much you know, and you have the nerve
to try to lecture us on computer history?

> That's my 2 cents ... :-)

Not worth a penny.

"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
>