[geeks] Windows XP 64bit Licensing?

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

nate at portents.com wrote:
>> Linux has no problem with >3GB of RAM.
> 
> That depends on what you mean by "no problem"... about a year ago, when I
> surveyed 64-bit distros they tended to opt for 64-bit native package
[ snip [

Understood, but you changed the subject.

I was merely referring to Linux not having a limit in how much RAM it accesses.

64-bit Windows was a real PITA too.

Even 64-bit Solaris was a bitch if you had old enough hardware or were on one 
side of their cut-off line, and tons of software was not 64-bit clean for many 
years.

64-bit NetBSD and FreeBSD also took some time to catch up in these areas, and 
still haven't in many ways.

We still have a problem across *ALL* OS with proprietary software not being 
released in 64-bit form, and the creators not giving enough information to
glue them into 64-bit models.

That's really not the fault of Linux, *BSD, or Solaris.

> builds, which caused quite a hassle when for instance you wanted to use a
> 32-bit browser plugin like Flash but you had a 64-bit browser installed. 

I guess they felt that if you are going to have a 64-bit system, then it should 
be a 64-bit system.

Solaris did things halfway, which had some advantages, and also sucked in some ways.



-- 
shannon           | An Irishman is never drunk as long as he can hold onto
                   | one blade of grass and not fall off the face of the earth.