Originally Posted by wuyanxu
you people who are still on XP 32bit expect reviewer to waste time and effort to test old technology for you?
64bit is the way forward. in fact, there is no reason to install 32bit on newly built computers.
One could find that offensive, but as it's very hard to establish emphasis and attitude on a forum, benefit of the doubt applies.
I agree to a point - there are still a large amount of people who see Vista as a crock of cr*p, leaving XP the obvious choice (not to mention it's cheaper). Linux is technically an option, but it's the still the 'underground' OS. If you're buying XP, it will almost certainly be the 32-bit version, as it simply isn't worth the hassle of forcing 64-bit to work with all the 32-bit apps you have.
However, I do agree that buying Vista gives you both 32 & 64 bit versions in one box, and MS have got their act in gear with Vista 64, meaning you as an end-user doesn't have to suffer getting 32-bit apps to run.
A cynic could argue that the tests that this review did were a waste of time anyway. That said, it is nice to know that not everything is assumed nowadays (otherwise we'd still be looking at clock speeds as the be-all-and-end-all and all using P4s). I just think that because a 32-bit OS has memory limitations, it worth within the scope of the review to test whether max RAM at 32-bit is any better than 1/2Gb.