BUGGI, Re: I wouldn't agree here. Why provide a 64BIT version which is slowlier than the 32BIT one?
I have brought this up before. I think it will be very difficult for AMD to get some developers to port to 64-bits when the architectural differences don't make much of a difference for their application. If 32-bit memory capacity isn't an issue and there are no performance advantages, you probably won't see a port of the application. The situation may be worse if the 32-bit version degrades even worse under a 64-bit OS because of the WoW switching. I have said many times before that the 64-bit transition is not going to be as smooth as people assume. There is not even a baseline for you guys to compare against. You are only seeing the rosiest picture from the enthusiast websites that show performance improvements in some apps, and you assume that this will be the case across the board. I have also seen people here explain away poor results by claiming that Microsoft will miraculously cure the performance penalty by the time Windows 64 ships. All I see are a lot of crossed fingers. My prediction is that Windows 64 will be underwhelming when it launches.
Re: you know very well that a 64BIt OS from MSFT is coming online with driver support for the needed parts.
No offense, but don't be naive. Microsoft is not going to offer Windows 64 as their primary OEM distribution. There are simply too many drivers to port, and 64-bits requires *all* of them to be ported. Microsoft is only offering it as a niche product for those interested in the increased memory capacity, and they'll probably charge a premium for it, too. The average consumer will not have Windows 64 bundled with their new purchases, and any business would wait for the few couple service packs before implementing something new and unproven. Any user with a hardware device without a 64-bit driver will be SOL.
That's the reality, but you may have to wait for actual results before you realize it.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
