On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 14:21 -0700, Kam Leo wrote: > Aside from the Microsoft's technical and licensing hurdles that does > not explain why many companies with those IP rights have not ported to > the newest platform. (BTW, many also did not bother to port to Windows > XP-64.) Is it because the 64-bit market is too small to be worth the > effort? If the 64-bit world is so great why has Intel released a whole > bunch of new multi-core 32-bit only processors for the consumer > market. Is it possible that users aren't getting much benefit from > using applications converted to 64-bits? > > As they say: "Where is the killer app for 64-bit computing?" Depends on who the "user" is, and what a "killer app" is to that user. Most things that consumers need don't approach requiring (or seriously benefitting from) 64 bits. But some servers and workstations can get a lot from the wider data path and bigger address space. I would guess that very few home users require more than 4G of RAM, but it helps a lot around here where I work. Almost every new workstation we get is 64 bit arch.
