Windows64 can use the extra power in the new 64-bit CPUs from AMD and Intel. Windows XP is 32-bit, so it basically can't use the extra.
Win64 is really only useful if you also have 64-bit applications to run on it. It is likely that 32-bit apps [probably 99+% of current apps] could even run slower on it due to the extra OS layer required for backward compatibility.
'Normal' users are unlikely to need 64-bit for quite a while. Maybe in 2006 when Longhorn [next Windows] ships :)
Even though it's from April I think this article sums up where MS focus is at the moment. I've been supporting Windows XP ever since it came out and as much as another update is somewhat annoying it's one that needs to be done. I think it will substantially improve the general condition of the internet as well as the user's experience. This will help a lot for those users who do not get that their machine must stay up to date with current patches or aren't savvy enough with 3rd party firewalls to be able to block the malign traffic. The reason I say this is that most folks like that would never be able to figure out how to turn off a built-in firewall...so they'll get protection thus protecting all the rest of us from their lackadaisical computing habits making the internet less saturated with bunk traffic and more available for businesses to get work done and people to enjoy themselves and communicate. Currently, when those user's machines get infected the network traffic alone can cause serious problems with the internet as a whole. It's a bad situation, something really needed to be done, my only complaint is that it wasn't done sooner. The logic I can't find fault with would be MS thinking: Why should we release another OS when the one that the majority of people are using now needs serious changes, mostly with regards to security of the built in/default variety. Looks like right now the closest you could get to seeing what Longhorn is going to be about would be to install XP SP2.
I found a beta of longhorn on another forum(for legal purposes i am not allowed to say the name of the site [forum rules]). Once it is down downloading i will install it on a virtual pc. But right now i think that 2006 is a little fast for a new windows to be released. Xp should just be updated with the new features but you know Micro$oft all they want is for people to by more expensive porducts like office for $500 that is ridiculous (thats where bittorrent steps in hint hint.)
Why should we release another OS when the one that the majority of people are using now needs serious changes
Same answer to many questions ..... money.
Just think how many of us will toss XP when Longhorn comes out. Weigh that against the decreasing sales of XP and also consider greed and the answer is clear.
I imagine Microsoft will stay with it's tried and true formula 'get it seventy per cent complete and release it for sale'. Let the world pay to be the beta testers.
Funny, to read Antioed's message and think of Linux .... you describe what they are doing quite well
I think eventually Microsoft will be to operating sytems what the train is to transportation, what once dominated will be outdated and not taken seriously.
Few thousand programmers in Redmond versus the rest of the world. Seems obvious who the eventual winner will be. Expensive and weak or strong and free .... what's your choice?
since this person probly has already learned the difference he should learn how stupid it is to think about 64-bit processors at this time in technology because there are hardly any programs out side of professional editing software that would need a 64-bit processor if these programs can even run on the extremely rocky 64-bit windows.