It's somewhat true that, due to the fact that x86(_64) are just virtual machine languages to modern processors which actually work much differently inside than the instructions would imply, the instruction set advantages to long mode are very small and sometimes negative (need twice as much space to store an address).
However, the much larger address space is a huge advantage. Address way more memory in total, and way more per app. I'll even make the very dangerous bet that it won't run out of address space within 20 years for desktop systems. In fact mapping shared libraries and memory operations in general are just way simpler / more elegant... it's even easier too debug running programs because the stack starts at a convenient address. All the alternatives you mention are dirty hacks. Lack of support for 16-bit mode is actually a bonus.
Finally, the open source community only took a year or two to transition to perfect 64-bit support, and it's been fine since at least 2005. In fact, you might find that the majority of software for windows available in a 64-bit version is... open source!
Flash worked fine with nspluginwrapper + flashblock for years, but since the 64-bit version came out I've been running pure 64-bit linux systems.
Anyway, my point is: I would consider myself to be pragmatic, but I'm sure many would consider me to be an idealist free-software advocate, because it seems clear to me that the big commercial powers in the personal computer world greatly hinder technological advancement, something I'm rather fond of. This is slashdot, after all. 64 bit support is a perfect example.
Adobe, Microsoft... see, this is why we can't have nice things!
Tomato has all the features I want and a slick web interface; in comparison, DD-WRT has craploads of random features, many of them inferior to those in Tomato (QOS in particular), in a less than perfectly reliable and not well organized web interface. Thus I was very dissapointed to find that Tomato would reboot every 30 hours on average on my WRT54GLs, despite trying different versions and clean settings etc, including on a brand-new WRT54GL I had. I had to use DD-WRT so my appartment mates and I could keep track of our Comcast quota. It's been up for over 100 days now (pathetic, in my opinion, but still an improvement).
Lots of computers have problems, there are downsides to every platform available, this part of your story is not new to me.
What strikes me is that you complain about core 2 duos running like mollasas and needed 6 gigs of memory for vista.
If you were the typical user with loads of vendor-preinstalled ass-ware on your computer, perhaps this would be realistic, but you apparently have experience with linux and computer component installation as well, so your apparent lack of adeptness at managing your own computer is surprising to me.
As a point of comparison, I have a convertible tablet with 1gb of memory, which I boot into windows for using OneNote to take notes in classes. Frankly, 1gb is enough if you remove all the crap (and replace lots of it with open source alternatives that don't suck), and the intel graphics are enough if you turn off aero transparency and don't play games. So, I understand if you claim you need 2Gb to run vista, but 4? 6? What are you running, iTunes + antivirus + official AIM + updaters for 20 odd apps? You could have skipped the ram upgrades and have a faster computer than you do now if you get the bloatware and the services and "helpers" under control. This has been the case with windows since at least 98. You should know better.
PS pidgin is pretty good, and I've heard of a windows alternative to quicksilver
No other system includes the (tiny) -dev headers necessary for compilation in their binary packages, nor do they reasonably easily allow you to ignore listed dependencies and handle it yourself with eg. a source package.
I also appreciate Slackware's init scripts... Just about every other Linux distro has at least 3 levels of indirection to their scripts, just making for needless hassle.
Archlinux also includes the dev headers with the primary binary packages. It also is generally less complex than the typical distro. Not nearly as minimalistic as Slack, but a good balance.
I interned for a company named "Xirrus" this past summer; their primary product is similar to what you describe. It's an "Array" of directional access points in a radial pattern, each access point running on a different channel in the 5GHz band (802.11a). These things are pretty expensive and mostly sold to universities, airports, etc, but they work pretty well...
Actually I just noticed that Xirrus was mentioned in TFA. Anyway, if you want a look at the inside of one of these things, see here: http://xirrus.com/products/arrays.php
I'd have to disagree. Getting infected is still for the "dumb and lazy", only the threshold is now a lot closer to the "smart and proactive" side of the meter than it used to be.
Antivirus software is a losing proposition: It's not useful unless it's _ahead_ of the virus writers, it increasingly suffers from false positives, and if it identifies crap from a wealthy company it can be forced to ignore it. Even without considering the fact that all most successful antivirus packages on the market are crap (for reasons outlined in this excellent essay by Bruce Schneier), antivirus software isn't a good enough solution.
The best solution is to run a system which doesn't respond to data received over the network in a way which the operator wouldn't want. This is simply too inconvenient for the vast majority of people (especially those people who couldn't begin to understand what they want their computer to do in any detail).
This is however quite possible to achieve even today, for example by running a linux/unix system with all network listening services turned off (except sshd with a decent policy and passwords), running firefox with the noscript extension (or even better, a text-mode browser such as elinks). I've actually managed to do without antivirus software on my windows machines for years, by simply keeping up with the latest updates, turning off most services, running firefox, and knowing what software is safe to download and run (open-source windows software primarily).
My point is that the solution to the security problem is to stop messing around with crappy reactionary solutions like antivirus software, and instead focus on programming and using systems which were designed to be secure from the beginning (like OpenBSD), and don't do stupid things you wouldn't want them to. This would however require users to be trained to use computers properly if they can't figure it out themselves, not unlike how users of cars must be trained in order to keep them safe on roads, and can have their licenses revoked when they demonstrate lack of ability or care.
Making software which is both secure and reasonably convenient to use is a hard problem, but it's one which should be pursued.
Slashdot Mirror
It's somewhat true that, due to the fact that x86(_64) are just virtual machine languages to modern processors which actually work much differently inside than the instructions would imply, the instruction set advantages to long mode are very small and sometimes negative (need twice as much space to store an address).
However, the much larger address space is a huge advantage. Address way more memory in total, and way more per app. I'll even make the very dangerous bet that it won't run out of address space within 20 years for desktop systems. In fact mapping shared libraries and memory operations in general are just way simpler / more elegant... it's even easier too debug running programs because the stack starts at a convenient address. All the alternatives you mention are dirty hacks. Lack of support for 16-bit mode is actually a bonus.
Finally, the open source community only took a year or two to transition to perfect 64-bit support, and it's been fine since at least 2005. In fact, you might find that the majority of software for windows available in a 64-bit version is... open source!
Flash worked fine with nspluginwrapper + flashblock for years, but since the 64-bit version came out I've been running pure 64-bit linux systems.
Anyway, my point is: I would consider myself to be pragmatic, but I'm sure many would consider me to be an idealist free-software advocate, because it seems clear to me that the big commercial powers in the personal computer world greatly hinder technological advancement, something I'm rather fond of. This is slashdot, after all. 64 bit support is a perfect example.
Adobe, Microsoft... see, this is why we can't have nice things!
Tomato has all the features I want and a slick web interface; in comparison, DD-WRT has craploads of random features, many of them inferior to those in Tomato (QOS in particular), in a less than perfectly reliable and not well organized web interface. Thus I was very dissapointed to find that Tomato would reboot every 30 hours on average on my WRT54GLs, despite trying different versions and clean settings etc, including on a brand-new WRT54GL I had. I had to use DD-WRT so my appartment mates and I could keep track of our Comcast quota. It's been up for over 100 days now (pathetic, in my opinion, but still an improvement).
Lots of computers have problems, there are downsides to every platform available, this part of your story is not new to me.
What strikes me is that you complain about core 2 duos running like mollasas and needed 6 gigs of memory for vista.
If you were the typical user with loads of vendor-preinstalled ass-ware on your computer, perhaps this would be realistic, but you apparently have experience with linux and computer component installation as well, so your apparent lack of adeptness at managing your own computer is surprising to me.
As a point of comparison, I have a convertible tablet with 1gb of memory, which I boot into windows for using OneNote to take notes in classes. Frankly, 1gb is enough if you remove all the crap (and replace lots of it with open source alternatives that don't suck), and the intel graphics are enough if you turn off aero transparency and don't play games. So, I understand if you claim you need 2Gb to run vista, but 4? 6? What are you running, iTunes + antivirus + official AIM + updaters for 20 odd apps? You could have skipped the ram upgrades and have a faster computer than you do now if you get the bloatware and the services and "helpers" under control. This has been the case with windows since at least 98. You should know better.
PS pidgin is pretty good, and I've heard of a windows alternative to quicksilver
No other system includes the (tiny) -dev headers necessary for compilation in their binary packages, nor do they reasonably easily allow you to ignore listed dependencies and handle it yourself with eg. a source package.
I also appreciate Slackware's init scripts... Just about every other Linux distro has at least 3 levels of indirection to their scripts, just making for needless hassle.
Archlinux also includes the dev headers with the primary binary packages. It also is generally less complex than the typical distro. Not nearly as minimalistic as Slack, but a good balance.
I interned for a company named "Xirrus" this past summer; their primary product is similar to what you describe. It's an "Array" of directional access points in a radial pattern, each access point running on a different channel in the 5GHz band (802.11a). These things are pretty expensive and mostly sold to universities, airports, etc, but they work pretty well... Actually I just noticed that Xirrus was mentioned in TFA. Anyway, if you want a look at the inside of one of these things, see here: http://xirrus.com/products/arrays.php
I'd have to disagree. Getting infected is still for the "dumb and lazy", only the threshold is now a lot closer to the "smart and proactive" side of the meter than it used to be. Antivirus software is a losing proposition: It's not useful unless it's _ahead_ of the virus writers, it increasingly suffers from false positives, and if it identifies crap from a wealthy company it can be forced to ignore it. Even without considering the fact that all most successful antivirus packages on the market are crap (for reasons outlined in this excellent essay by Bruce Schneier), antivirus software isn't a good enough solution. The best solution is to run a system which doesn't respond to data received over the network in a way which the operator wouldn't want. This is simply too inconvenient for the vast majority of people (especially those people who couldn't begin to understand what they want their computer to do in any detail). This is however quite possible to achieve even today, for example by running a linux/unix system with all network listening services turned off (except sshd with a decent policy and passwords), running firefox with the noscript extension (or even better, a text-mode browser such as elinks). I've actually managed to do without antivirus software on my windows machines for years, by simply keeping up with the latest updates, turning off most services, running firefox, and knowing what software is safe to download and run (open-source windows software primarily). My point is that the solution to the security problem is to stop messing around with crappy reactionary solutions like antivirus software, and instead focus on programming and using systems which were designed to be secure from the beginning (like OpenBSD), and don't do stupid things you wouldn't want them to. This would however require users to be trained to use computers properly if they can't figure it out themselves, not unlike how users of cars must be trained in order to keep them safe on roads, and can have their licenses revoked when they demonstrate lack of ability or care. Making software which is both secure and reasonably convenient to use is a hard problem, but it's one which should be pursued.