Dean Kent (dkent@realworldtech.com) on 5/11/07 wrote:
---------------------------
>While this may be true, for some reason I am still skeptical about how important
>64-bits is for the average user. Vista is still not very widely used, and Linux
>has a very long way to go to become a major player on the desktop.


At the moment, 64 bit Vista is more of a hindrance than benefit to most users, given the driver issues and lack of 16 bit support. A few years down the road, as application memory demands continue to grow and the driver issue is addressed, it'll change.

As always, techies overestimate the number of people who upgrade OSs (just because we do it on a regular basis doesn't mean that it happens with any frequency in the real world). Vista is certainly the default install on almost all new machines sold, and that's been only about four months.



>According to our usage stats here, less than 15% of our pages are served to those
>running 64-bit capable OS'. I don't have a breakdown on which versions of Linux,
>so I am presuming all of them are 64-bit for purposes of this stat.


By 15%, do you mean 15% running any version of Vista or Linux or Solaris or... Or is that actually 15% with real 64 bit OSs? (Which would shock me.)