yeh the point being though until most applications run fine, and the end users dont need to know what to change really isn't a point in moving to the 64bit o/s, most people will jump on that horse, and then complain. Personally i wouldn't move on it. and really u can sit here and judge a 32bit application on a 32bit system and now how it's goin got react etc etc and the speed it should take to load up, whereas there isn't many or if any actual 64bit applications out there to actually take advantage of the 64bit processing power of the amd chip.
So really what would be the point of moving in to the 64bit o/s using 32bit applications? it's not takin any advantage at all, since the cpu has to use 32bit translations.
|Results were generally close to those achieved by the same desktop running XP Pro: In some cases XP Pro was a bit faster, and in others XP X64 was quicker.
In my informal tests, however, a number of applications wouldn't install, including several programs from Microsoft. Some of these were applications that historically have been written for specific versions of Windows, such as PowerToys for Windows XP (including the highly practical Tweak UI) and most major antivirus and security packages. I also couldn't install the beta of MSN Toolbar Suite and the finished version of Photo Story 3. Office 2003 SP1 did install, but only after displaying a confusing error message.
but in reality we can only assume how fast it will be ( the 64bit o/s not the amd chips as we know they kick some serious derrieres ) because there isn't any 64bit application like i said that can utilize the memory resources the x64 bit o/s can give.