Yo, dude... What you quoted in no way addresses the 64-bit *applications*
issue. Until the applications are there that truly are 64-bit, the problems
with 64-bit Windows (and there are plenty) are not worth the risk for so
little return, and no matter how many cute tricks the programmers and
Microsoft pull to make what are essentially 32-bit apps run faster under
64-bit architecture, that is not at all the same as having true 64-bit
applications.
Not only that, but SuperFetch would drive the RAM worry warts, the ones who
insist that there must be as much free memory as possible, absolutely
bonkers, <g>.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com
"rasmasyean" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
news:2a91e45ba70dbeffebeb7d21f6de1298@xxxxxx-gateway.com...
Quote:
>
> Not Even Me;822139 Wrote: Quote:
>> If enough software makers provide 64 bit apps, the trend may continue.
>> I haven't seen all that many that are true 64 bit apps, most will work
>> with
>> 64 bit, but don't take full advantage of it's capabilities.
>> I have no immediate plans to use 64 bit, my best estimate is 2-3 years
>> to
>> mainstream enough 64 bit apps to make it worthwhile.
>
> Yo dude, you didn't even read that article. 
>
> "What started out as a gradual (some would say "glacial") movement
> toward 64-bit PCs, driven primarily by technology enthusiasts, seems to
> have turned into a swift transition, likely fueled by the falling cost
> of memory and consumers' desire to get the most out of their PCs."
>
> " 'PC Accelerators'
> (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...celerator.mspx) built
> into Windows Vista, such as *Windows SuperFetch*, improve performance by
> keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is
> closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its
> job more efficiently. "
>
>
> --
> rasmasyean