>Craig,
>
>I'm really surprised that you're in the "64-bit or death" camp because you're an old cuss like me and I'd of thought history would have taught you something about processor upgrades:
>
>1983: PC/AT - Protected mode apps are doomed because "manly" apps will all run in real mode. BUZZZZ.
>
>1986: 386 - Programs that don't use the new extended memory addressing are doomed. Doomed, I tell you. BUZZZZ.
>
>1995: Pentium Pro - True 32-bit apps are the wave of the future. Any app with a whiff of 16-bit in it is doomed! BUZZZZ.
>
>So...what's the earliest that pure 64-bit chipsets (not 32/64 hybrids) take over the desktop? By my personal estimate 4 or more years. So can we expect this:?
>
>2009: Apps that don't run in native 64-bit are doomed! Doomed I tell you!
>
>In my experience, end-users don't care. They want an application that fills their needs, if relatively flexible, and relatively nimble. Users don't count bits...and they never have.
>

Hi John,
FYI since 2004 Intel have stopped to produce pure 32-bit server processors.
Now on the market you can find only 32/64-bit Xeons and 64-bit Itanium2s
Portion of Itanium processors rise I will be able to give you more info next week after annual Intel meeting(June 9-11).
Per your expectations in 2008 in Server side will be sold only 64-bit processors. only Microsoft could "help" - do not providing good 64-bit OS :-)