Strategy for fixing Bug #1

[Jan Claeys]

Op woensdag 27-12-2006 om 11:20 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Wes
Morgan:
> You know, after doing a little digging, I think ESR may be smoking the
> cheeb on one of his points here. He claims that Vista is still a
> 32-bit OS. Upon first reading of the essay, I took his word for it. I
> figured that, like Windows 95 wasn't _really_ a 32-bit OS, neither was
> the "64-bit" version of Vista that comes in the box w/ every edition
> sans "Starter." Like, maybe it was "64-bit" but still limited the
> amount of memory you can address or something (the lower-end 64-bit
> Vistas DO in fact limit you to 8GB of system memory). 
> 
> However, upon further digging, it seems that Vista 64 is the
> Windows-64 that ESR says doesn't exist. He claims that the 64-bit
> transition will be foisted upon the market once all systems are
> shipped with more than 4GB of RAM. Seems reasonable. Except that he
> sees our opportunity in the fact that MS doesn't have an OS ready to
> handle that. That assertion, it would seem, is patently false. 
> 
> Does anyone know what else he might be referring to there? He doesn't
> really back up his claim that Windows-64 doesn't exist. 

>From what I heard the desktop editions of Vista 64 probably won't be
used much (at least not immediately, and not by OEMs), mostly because of
a lack of 64-bit drivers and because of compatibility problems with
several Win32 programs (and no support for DOS/Win16 programs IIRC?).  I
might be wrong though...


-- 
Jan Claeys