:rolleyes:
So then you're saying that dividing Windows up into various flavors of 64-bit and 32-bit is done merely to milk their customers? I agree.

No idea what you're talking about.
Care to explain a bit?

You're joking, right? If they "got things right with ".NET, then they could change a couple options in their projects and get things working together. There would be no need to have different versions of the OS for 64 and 32 bit. If there is a real need for two versions, then they didn't get things right.

Except, drivers are not based on the .NET framework.

In fact, the .NET framework has nothing to do with what you're complaining about.
The reason for Windows coming in both platforms is that they did not spend any resources on figuring out how to run 32bit drivers on a 64bit system.
The compiled both platforms independently, and let the third party developers port drivers as they saw fit. If you had more than 8GB of RAM or just wanted 64bit, and had supported hardware, it was available. If not, you didn't need it. I don't think they expect anyone to buy both versions.
Apple took the "hey, we're transitioning all of you to 64bit over a few versions of the OS" approach, MS took the "we have both a 32 and 64bit version if you want it" approach. My opinion is neither approach is wrong.

Again, I was only talking about the application framework, similar to Carbon or Cocoa. Your complaint is the same as saying "If Apple got Cocoa right, they wouldn't need that 32bit kernel or Carbon support anymore."

.NET makes it easy to move your applications to either platform. I like that. Anything else you read into this is more than I intended (and personally I think you're stretching for an argument).

That would be true if the only person who mattered was the developer. In the real world, it's the user that matters most. Forcing the user to make an arbitrary choice that will cause problems for them either way is not getting it right.
Well, I suppose if you want to narrowly define "getting it right" as making the developer's job easier at the expense of users, then you've got a point.

pfft.

For most of us, there was no problem. The only people who can't run 64bit Windows right now are the ones with really old hardware that Windows doesn't have a built-in or third party driver for. And in that case, there's absolutely no harm in simply sticking with 32bit. There is no compelling need to move to 64bit on many systems, so it's silly to worry about.

Yeah, if you read my original post, you will see I narrowly defined "getting it right" only in reference to the .NET framework. What you're arguing about is tangential to my point.

cwtnospam, are you trolling again?

I think he likes me. ;)

I <3 you too, cwt!