> What are you saying? That 64-bits would have made such a
> system run better? Otherwise, why bring it up? It certainly
> doesn't seem to enforce your position.
It is an argument against your position. 64-bits is useful
as I've pointed out many times. But perhaps you don't understand
that from an engineering point of view.
> How long did it take Microsoft to end support on Win98/ME?
> It's an 6-8 year old operating system, so of course
> Microsoft is not obliged to support it, especially since
> they have launched Win2k and WinXP in the mean time. As a
> rule of thumb, I would expect MSFT to support WinXP users
> for a couple of years after Vista launches, so by late
> 2008, if you haven't upgraded your OS, you probably should.
The policy has a lot of people puzzled but I've seen
references to it at Microsoft's web site. Perhaps they are
playing a bit more of the hardline side now. $150 bucks for
35 million lines of code is not that bad a deal.
> Of course, none of this precludes the purchase of a 32-bit
> Core Duo, since even 32-bit CPUs will be able to run Vista.
Yes, but you will have to rethink the decision in a year.
Do you really want to buy a system where you don't have the
choice to go 64-bits when you have to make an operating
system decision in a year?
BTW, if anyone does buy a Windows system within the next year,
I'd definitely recommend getting XP Pro or XP Pro x64 to avoid
this potential mess.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
