Let me re-phrase (something I seem to have to do a lot in this forum). Linux has final distros that use the 64-bit extensions. Windows XP 64-bit edition seems to be in perpetual beta (it's been in beta since the athlon 64's came out). Which reminds me, I saw a news article the other day that said that Intel is going to license the AMD 64-bit extensions for their Desktop 64-bit processors. If I can find the article again later I'll post it as a seperate post so we can stay on subject here.

Well, Intel already has support for 64bit extensions, they just keep it hush hush because this 64bit solution is seen as basic hype and nothing important. And MS likes Intel better than AMD, so they are keeping Windows 64 on the shelf until Intel gives them the go ahead.

Intel has stayed behind their Itanium 64 bit processor's however last i heard a while ago was Intel was going to use AMD's 64bit extentions either via a license or reverse engineering. MS has already announced that the only 64bit extensions they will support is AMD's. By the way MS does not like Intel at all. they are reluctant partners but certainly not good buddies. Which is why MS dumped them from Xbox 2. The only reason they used them not the first one was because the P3 had a socket version available while the athlon was a slot and ran much hotter then a P3 (and wasn't as stable at the time) also MS was reluctnt to use parts the appleline of parts. However that seems to have changed....

As Zuggy posted I guess there isnt really much pros and cons. Windows and Linux are pretty much the same as long as they are both maintained properly.

For example i bought my laptop and put windows xp on it. I used it for a while and got some nasty virus's and then had to reformat my hard drive. But this time i split my harddrive into two partitions, one for files and the other for the OS and programs. I kept a folder called new windows which had all the programs i used installers so in the case that something did go wrong all i would have to do is reinstall windows and then just run a bunch of installers and within 30min have my entire laptop back into working condition, oh and you cant forget the drivers. Since then my laptop has worked fairly well and every once in a while i check my reg edit for what programs start up(and other stuff) when windows starts, run a ad-ware remover, scan my hard drive for virus's, defrag and clean up. Over all i havnt really had many problems with windows and if linux wasnt around i would be happy because if i didnt know about linux, i wouldn't want it.

Linux on the other hand, since i first used it i just loved the way it worked and the different feel i got. I also like knowing i can change anything on linux, even though now i dont know linux that well. But over time im sure i will be able to master linux like i did windows.

Again as Zuggy posted i guess its really just a matter of preference and you cant really say which is better or even state out that many pros or cons. I think this thread has been a great learning experience for me and hopefully other too.

As far as the advancements of linux i dont think much is going to change, i think windows will always have the larger group of users because thats just what people accept. Also i think a lot of people are mis leaded into thinking a lot of thinks about linux which are completely un-true. Like how linux is more expensive than windows!?!??!

My mom for example like Zuggy's uses windows xp and is happy, i think she would be more happy with linux but because shes afriad of change and loosing the things she has now she will never try it. This is one of the main problems, i think people dont try linux because there afraid of the risk of loosing what they have now. It took a long time just to get my mom to start using firefox instead of ie which might i add is the WORSE browser iv ever used, its sickning really.

OK, let me try one more time. I don't want to hi-jack this thread, but this should put and end to the Intel 64 "rumors". You can buy a system today (as in right now) with P4's or Xeon's in them which have the "64 bit extensions that are a copy of AMDs." (otherwise known as EM64T) Its done. Its fact. They range in price from $1,300 - $2,000.

You should not just take my word for it, here order one:
HP Workstations

Go to the customization page:
HP Workstation customizations

There you will see very specifically, to add a P4 3.8G 1MB cache 800FSB and EM64T is $850 extra (as an upgrade from the 32 bit 2.8G P4 that comes standard.)

They will even install the Windows 64 beta or Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS 3 (64 bits OSes . . .)

There is no reverse engineering or licensing needed. Its just a logical progression built on IA-32. There's no big secret to make it work. If AMD tried to stop Intel from making the EM64T, Intel could stop AMD from making anything based on IA-32 (which ironically would include their 64bit solution). The AMD 64bit is just a basic copy of IA-32 x 2. Big secret. There is nothing else special involved.

Now here is an article from 2003 basically saying, P4’s and Xeons already come with 64bit extensions, they are just turned off.
Intel Prescott Already Has 64-bit Extensions

Now you might think this is just hype, but hey, pull out your credit card and prove it wrong.

As to 64bit Windows – its as stable as XP is, has been for a long time (at least a year). If they don’t have an agreement with Intel, why else would they keep it off the market? AMD and MS would be making a nice profit together getting everyone to buy new systems today – no need to wait for longhorn.

Maybe MS and Intel aren’t in love, but they worked together to make ACPI. They worked together to make EFI – they need each other. There is no other company in the world MS needs as much as it needs Intel.

Why are there no colorful dancing Intel bunny guys or blue mimes selling the Intel 64 bit extensions? Because its all hush hush - like I mentioned. They think this 64bit solution is junk and they have bigger plans.

i dont know hwat EFI even is. so how is that an advantage?

use a better distro like yoper. mandrake has waaaaay too many services running by default. and its not optimized at all.

what are you talking about? in most cases, win2k is BETTER than xp. xp is crap if oyu want to get any work done. all it is is just bloat and a themeing engine on top of win2k.

EFI is the coming replacement for BIOS. Longhorn will be the last OS to support the original 1984 IBM PC BIOS specificaton. Finally, the industry will be completly rid of real mode.

I wasn't say xp is better than w2k, i was saying when w2k came out i was bashing it by habbit - not because of any reason. w2k and xp are both fine (as in worth the asking price).

well EFI dosent even exist yet. nobody uses it, why should anyone support it?

when it is widely used, it will be implemented. its like bashing linux for lack of 64 bit support before4bit procs were ever released to the public and MS had an alpha version of 64bit xp. history shows that when the BIOS dies linux will have better support for EFI.

EFI is out. Here are specifications from 2000 & 2002:
http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/doc/EFI/

Its an open source BIOS solution so the Linux world shoud be all over it.

And my intent is not to bash Linux in anyway. Maybe thats what you don't get, this is about facts, its not about bashing.

Just because someone says, "this is an issue", doesn't mean they are bashing.

And BIOS won't die on its own. AMD, Intel, and MS are working together to supplant it. So this is exactly what I am saying about MS leading.

Edit:
Here is a good link including some junk MS released about EFI and longhorn:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm

but is it really an issue?

ms may decide where we all go, but they ussually dont go there correctly.

hardware conforms to windows, linux conforms to hardware.

I think that linux is not harder nor easier. It is just different. Many ppl find it hard, because they could manage fairly well their Windoze systems but now they now nothing, they are in a different dimension. Mount? /? root? /etc? home? where are my *.exe? package? source? terminal?....
Overlooking this factor, i think that there are many distros easier than windoze. Look at mandrake. The problem with windows is that their developers confuse "ease of use" with "ofuscation of the concept", i mean that, if you have a problem with anything, windows says "whatever doesnt work", but linux is more concrete. If you have a very little knowledge or you dont hav but u want to find a solution, you have tips and ghides to solve the problem. Under windows the solution is usually formatting.

Anyway, even if linux were worse i'd defend it for ideological reasons. we have to admit that microsoft represents capitalism and linux represents freedom and socialism (doesn it in some way? ).

linux represents socialism??

linux for me represents computer geeks being able to do what they want with their computers, not their computers doing what they want with the user.

yeah thats a new one :S and wether or not socialism is good and/0r capitalism is bad is certainly up for debate but for good images sake it may not be the best analogy to use when trying to show how good linux is

how is a working socialism bad in any way?

indeed. some people think that capitalism & democracy are the most evolved forms of economy & government.
just look at star trek. they don´t vote. they don´t have money