Wow. I'm really surprised! I looked at the thread I posted to and saw that the other posts were so old I was almost embarrassed I had posted. But it came alive!
I thought I would throw out a few things.
On the subject a 64 bit processor running a 32 bit program and having better performance. Make sure you are actually measure what you think. Make sure that you are actually measuring Windows 7 32 bit against Windows 7 64 bit, not running a 32 bit program in comparison to running a 64 bit program in Windows 7 64 bit. In the case of Windows 7 32 bit the OS will run entirely in 32 bit mode. In the case of Windows 7 64 bit it will be switching between the two modes and will be slower. But even your choice of example programs is what I was talking about. You choose an a photo image program and you probably are editing multiple big images is in it. This is the kind of program use that can make good use of memory.
On the subject of the 128 bit processors. Actually we might see a 128 bit processors on the desktop in 10 years, but I think if we do it won't be for the reasons people always jump on. It won't be for the amount of memory they can access. More it will be for how much memory they can move around in one instruction.
On the subject of graphics cards that have more then 1.5 Gig of memory. Why would you think that is even close to what the average person has on their machine?
BTW I think if you have Vista (which I skipped) you have a strong argument for more memory because that OS was so bad in its memory consumption. But Windows 7 is much better. I much rather have 2 Gig on a Windows 7 machine then 4 Gig+ on a Vista machine.
Addressing this quote:
"I disagree totally with the view that the average user doesn't need a 64bit os or more than 4GB RAM. The average user should have a 64 bit operating system and as much ram as possible in order to be able to run all the bloat installed by the factory and all the additional user installed bloat without their system bogging down"
My answer to this is. Why would you leave the bloat on your machine? People want to know how to speed up their computer? Most of the time the answer comes down to removing what you don't need. And I will tell you that adding memory will not fix the problem. The truth is that from what I have seen most people's machines don't have so much of a memory problem where the machine is constantly swapping, but they have a "CPU drag" problem as in they have all these programs constantly wanting to run taking away from the applications that they really want to run. Sure a machine where they put on so much bloat that it is causing the machine to swap out programs their computer is going to be the slowest thing around. But even if you buy a bigger trashcan if you keep throwing trash in it the solution is to empty it not buy an even bigger trashcan every time you fill it.
Addressing this quote:
"there has been little or no incentive for hardware manufacturers or software developers build anything but 32 bit products. No competition can be just as lethal in the end as too much competition, and those who don't adapt will be left in the dust."
I agree in time, but the time scale is a lot slower then you think. And Microsoft's slow support of 64 bit (came out with XP, but no one hardly used it) shows this. So slow, but still what OS are you on? Microsoft Windows. For Unix/Linux 64 has been the dominate "bits" for many years before Microsoft put out a 64 bit OS, and that is one reason Unix/Linux dominated the server world, but in the desktop world the "slow adopting" has never hurt Microsoft, so maybe the customer has spoken? Could be that the average person doesn't want to pay for a car that can do 300 miles an hour? Sometimes the reason something isn't changed for long periods of time isn't because the company isn't competing, but because the company is giving the customer what they need. Instead of making the care run faster maybe the put in a nicer radio or made it safer. The competing is still there, just not in areas that the customer didn't really need. The truth is that the reason that everything is going to 64 bit now is because the IC manufactures say I can build the 64 bit processor for the same price as I sold the 32 bit processor and it is compatible with the 32 bit processing, why make both? So even if you don't ask for it any new machine has a 64 bit processor in it. (And if you got suckered into buy Vista you needed it too
)
The biggest problem I see though with the "Everyone should have 64 bits" is that it ignores the real world and the support problems. Yes as time goes on 64 bits will be the standard and frankly in another OS like Linux wouldn't even be a discussion, but in the world of Windows and old hardware, old programs, the support issues do not justify the somewhat dubious benefits for the average person out there.
