|
Re: Vista "Wow"
I believe the mindset is, force people to 64bit computing, even if there is
no real advantage, to help promote 64bit computing along.
I actually think the current approach is correct. There isn't a real need
for 64bit computing for 90% of home users and my *prediction* is that it
will be 4+ more years, before we need 4GB of ram in home users system and it
will be 8+ years, before we really need 8GB. I think some are trying to
apply Moore's law to memory "needed" and it doesn't work.
My prediction is 64bit computing will be more common place around 2010, if
Microsoft's release schedule holds, the people who switch over to Vienna,
will be opting for a pure 64bit environment. 64bit computing is a
enthusiasts' OS, not an everyday man's OS and most hardware and software
companies realize this.
<.> wrote in message news:uHOo96HdHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> There is no self evident arguement for that. So you do need to state
> reasons.
> "cvp" <goawayspammers@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UIQdMHdHHA.4468@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> As I said in an earlier post, I think they should have restricted Vista
>> to 64-bit (with a few compatibility enhancements for XP (later).
>>
>> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:u5xtH$GdHHA.5044@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> <.> wrote in message news:%23ATOC5GdHHA.4888@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> But the issue is in the buying. It is not efficient.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>> I though MS should have concentrated on XP_64 and not even bothered with
>>> Vista...
>>>
>>> Had XP_64 be the new OS...maybe throw in a few enhancements...
>>>
>>> OTOH: Bill Gates seems to be making a little more money on his job than
>>> I am
>>> on mine.
>>>
>>> When I was a kid...I started out at $1.10 an hour...
>>>
>>> heck I must make two or three times that much today <G>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|