RE: [BULK] RE: 64 bit Windows...

> I was not pointing out any inaccuracy per se, only
> contrasting this with our own experiences with 64-bit conversion in which
> every program with observable source was automagically converted to the
> 64-bit architecture.

That I can agree with.

> Does it not seem ironic that this "mainstream operating system" is
> just testing the 64-bit waters nearly 10 years after the iSeries?

Not ironic. 

Firstly, Microsoft themselves have been at the mercy of Intel (and Intel know 
it) waiting for Intel to pull their finger out and actual create a 64 bit 
processor that, and here's the key part, much like IBM did with the AS/400 
maintains as much backward compatibility as possible. However, to IBM's credit 
for the AS/400 they had the foresight to create the MI/IMPI/TIMI abstraction 
layer(s).

Looking back at Intel's past, in respect to the PC chips, they moved from 4 to 
8 to 16 to 32 bit processors (and by the way maintained very good backward 
compatibility while doing so) but then effectively choose the 'milk the market 
by making it go faster' business plan and stuck at 32-bit. Microsoft could have 
jump ship to a different chip manufacture (and you can use Google to see many 
rumours of this) but probably not a good business move. 

Also, this new chip from Intel had to be cheap (relatively) for market uptake. 
We all know and are aware how much IBM charges us (and the pSeries people too) 
for the honour of using their super-fantastic PPC based chips. Plus IBM has 
many, many divisions that also help fund their research.

So, given that Microsoft/Intel have a much larger install base to try and 
provide backward compatibility to - and I doubt that they will get 100%, but 
neither did IBM - plus a market that doesn't really see itself as the 'funding 
party' for the new technology it's not too surprising or that much of a stretch 
to see why they are perceivably only just getting around to the 64-bit world.

--phil