James Knott wrote:
In some ways, this reminds me of the early '90s, when people were still running 16 bit software (DOS & Win 3.1), even though the 386 had been available for years. Back then I was running a 32 bit OS (OS/2) and always felt restricted, when ever I had to use Windows. That still happens, as Windows still does not have some of the features and performance OS/2 did 16 years ago, nor the flexibility and features of Linux, that have also been available for years. Windows is simply the wrong way to go, for many reasons. Unfortunately, most people don't know of anything better.
Also, bluntly, for most business use, outside of web serving in some cases, 32 bit is fast enough.
Programs that only a decade ago took hours to run now take a few minutes. So why should a purchaser go to the extra expense of buying a 64-bit machine?
The general switch to 32-bit was also somewhat of godsend for many software vendors. They suddenly charged more for a new version of the product, when they had done little more than compile it again under a 64-bit compiler.
Never mind OS/2, Windows does not have some of the features that the Commodore Amiga had many years ago. (Either does Linux.) Unfortunately that doesn’t matter when the software you need (or think you need) only runs under Windows.
Jim Allan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
