maximiza :
Vista 64 won't be like XP 64. I still don't get why MS made Vista both 32 and 64. They should have only 64.
Perception that the customer base wouldn't be ready and therefore wouldn't accept it. Add undertainty regarding 3rd party willingness to create two sets of drivers for their products.
And I'm inclined to believe there's a certain amount of truth to that. Even now people like to scream about incompatibilities. About which, to a large extent, those of us who use V64 are often stuck scratching our heads trying to figure out what they're talking about. And should there be a response along the lines of
"...what do you mean it doesn't work... I'm looking at it now...", it just gets shouted down.
I agree, and have posted in the past that MSFT may well have been better off just going 64, and telling the market something along the lines of
"64 bit computing is the next step. We will be there, and invite you to join us with your next purchase..." Then issuing SP3 for XP and leaving it at that.
But from a business perspective, there's an awful lot of risk associated with a move like that. Hardly an apples for apples comparison, but Intel tried it, and lost, with their Itanium chips. And were rewarded for their efforts with only a niche. Doing both allows the market to stick with the 32 bit it knows, and allows the transition to be more gradual. Windows 7
(already being called 'Vista SP2 by some!?!?!') will stick to the same theme - 32 bit and 64 bit flavors.
I think it's a good thing that people are choosing to make the jump to 64 bit sooner rather than later - But I'm also thinking it may be more enthusiast/gamer driven
("More RAM") and that therefore there will be a slowdown in uptake as that niche is satisfied. We shall see, though - Enthusiasts and gamers do tell their friends and family what they like. And so the seeds may be sown for more widespread acceptance.
My $0.02