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 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
