Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 18:05 UTC, submitted by Luis
Complaining about Windows Vista is a national past time on Internet forums these days. Windows Vista 'costs too much', 'has onerous product activation', 'requires too much hardware', etc. These complaints are often followed up by a very simple boast: 'I'm just going to switch to Linux'. But in today's landscape, how viable is that statment? Is the threat to switch to Linux an empty one, or is it entirely possible?"
Thread beginning with comment 219749
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-09-26
...BUT! If we didn't have 64-bit now, there would be no incentive to make those 64-bit programs. Without which, there'd be no need for the hardware. Which wouldn't be developed then, as there would be no use - you'd have nothing to run on it.
Hardware has tossed out the eggs. Let the chicken be a chick first, so when it comes time to use 64 bit, we're all set up.
I want my 64-bit mIRC program!!!!!
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
But there is a difference, I am talking about the here and now; there is a difference. Maybe in 2-4 years time, then sure, 64bit processors *might* become the status quo, but lets remember that its only been recently that 64bit processors came out from Intel - I doubt software companies are going to throw out the opportunity to sell to customers.
But like I said, if customers want *more* memory than 4gigs, the current range of 32bit processors can do just that, and given the improvements in SSE3 - you can do 64bit (or even 128bit) computation just as efficiently, especially with the way SSE instructions are executed on the current range of Core and Core 2 processors.