To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Easy: Microsoft is first and foremost about marketing and trying to chase new markets, not spend money on markets they already totally own.
Also there's that little problem with Microsoft really being at the mercy of the hardware guys for device driver development compared with the centralization of the hardware drivers in the OS code. Pretty big boat anchor for them to overcome.
They didn't feel forced into supporting it so quickly and they've had bad technical problems trying to port their hacked up x86 code base. So effectively yes, they pretty much gave a huge lead to their competitors in the area which they're still very weak: servers and high performance computing. With the extreme high prices they charge in that area with really abysmal performance (especially IO) I just don't see them getting that market in the near future.
Edited 2008-04-03 04:06 UTC







Member since:
2007-12-08
From the marketing standpoint one would think it did not even exist. Because MS does not market it, if they do have a plug it is very, very small.
On the other hand, Red Hat Linux is in my opinion way ahead in the 64 bit realm, really all of the Linux distro's are accelerating out past MS in this area. Why I honestly believe it is because they do not really have any competition in this area and they will let it slip by then try to conquer the competitor as they have done in the past.
How many 'pre-loaded' 64 bit Windows boxes have you ever seen in a store much less on a website? If you do find it most of the time it is a tiny section and it almost as if it does not even exist.
Being a Linux Admin, about 90% of all of the production servers are RHEL5.1 64 because the servers have 32gig of memory and the setup can utilize the hardware in a more efficient way. I just do not understand why MS has missed the boat on this, trying to find 64 bit on their site is like trying to find a ad for Red Hat...