>PS -- Why do you say 32-bit is pretty much obsolete? This topic came up not long ago here and some people.I respect, like Rick Strahl, said it isn't even such a good idea. I didn't think a lot of apps even run in 64-bit yet.
>
>Mike, no one respects Rick more than I do regarding web technologies. I wish I knew one percent of what he knows on the subject. But I see too many Fox developers and former Fox developers get "warm fuzzies" everytime Rick Strahl makes a critical comment on ANY product/technology outside of FoxPro. This "Rick spoke the truth" regarding the first release of .NET has been WAY overplayed.
>
>This is not a criticism at all against Rick - it's more a criticism of too many who blindly want to pat him on the shoulder and claim, "he's OUR guy", simply because he (rightfully) didn't genuflect like a schill when .NET was released. But that doesn't mean he hasn't made points in other areas that are beyond vitiation, such as typed datasets or 64-bit. (And for that matter, people's views sometimes evolve over time).
>
>In the case of 64-bit, it's happening now. Here's one example: SharePoint 2010. It only runs in 64-bit - and a number of developers have been prototyping with the SP2010 bits on 64-bit machines. I have 3 work machines that all have 8 GB of memory and all run 64-bit applications. Sometimes there's a much bigger picture....

It's good to be speaking like human beings again. We both get a little too hot under the collar sometimes.

I do respect Rick's opinion. Warm and fuzzy has nothing to do with it. He has consistently been on the leading edge and has never reacted passionately like some of the rest of us, ever. The closest I can think of is disliking Apple, and I forgive him for that <g>.