Why are still not at 64 bits

[Ben Scott]

On 2/15/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <maddog at li.org> wrote:
>>   Correction: Windows 2003 R2 x64 supports a full 64-bit address
>> space, and I'm pretty sure Win XP Pro x64 does as well.  See my other
>> message in this thread about how support for those sucks, though.
>
> Right.  I think you actually made my case, didn't you?  Microsoft did
> not support 64-bit virtual address space until Vista.

  Well, as far as *that* goes, I still don't think they "support" it
well, even with Vista.  Sure, you can install something that supports
a 64-bit address space, but you're still crippled by a lack of
software that uses/needs it, a scarcity of drivers, and the inability
to develop drivers without Microsoft's permission and fee.  I'm not
sure what the Vista-itself support picture is like (i.e., will
Microsoft talk to you if you're running x86-64 Vista?).  I know some
features of Vista are not working in the 64-bit version.

  So, Microsoft doesn't "support" a 64-bit address space, even today,
in Vista.  Hey, it's only been like, what, 14 years since the Alpha
came out?  Don't rush them...

  As far as the rest of it, interesting, but it doesn't really answer
the question of "What practical benefit will the end-user reap from
64-bit computing?"  "Computers keep getting faster" might be true, but
it doesn't really answer that question.  There might be more of a
press to provide good 64-bit capable software if there an actual
reason to do so, ya know?  ;-)

-- Ben