I just didn't agree with you saying that 64 bit support didn't exist yet or if it did that it didn't matter. There is already a base of x86-64 and as such x>0. What percent cares at this point I don't know, I'm just saying x>0.
Why did you answer a different question than was asked?
Tenchu's question was quite specific and straight forward:
"what 64-bit software exists for desktops and laptops that (a) doesn't exist in a fully-functional 32-bit version or (b) runs so slow with 32 bits that you have to go 64."
Your answer "There is already a base of x86-64 and as such x>0." disingenuously sidesteps his question while pretending to answer it.
NaS, the key to 64-bit support is "critical mass." Until then, it's just going to be an evolutionary process, and evolution takes quite a while even in the fast-paced world of high-tech.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
