Evil SEO said:
"No more so than your "it doesn't on work on my machine; wait actually it's not my machine, I have this friend... ok I admit it I read it on the Internet" nonsense."

It's widely known that many companies didn't release 64bit drivers for their hardware and that the older drivers for XP x64 have hard times working on Vista x64 because Microsoft requires signed certificates while on Vista 32bit you can run most XP drivers, including video and sound drivers without issues because no certificates are required, no need to ask to friends or look on teh interwebs, everybody knows that a lot of older hardware doesn't work on 64bit windows systems because hardware companies couldn't care less to port, test, and pay for WHQL certification for discontinued hardware, knowing that if they did then you'd have no reasons to buy newer hardware from them.

"Yes, there is short term grief to be had with going off the deep and supporting 64 bit properly. Apple will have to pay that price sometime down the road. And honestly, if you want to blame people for buggy or missing 64 bit drivers, blame the people who write those drivers, not MS."

Hardware makers aren't supposed to support their products forever so no need to blame them unless they're Logitech, Creative, Canon or Dlink that discontinue their products way too quickly. On OS X you can run 64bit applications and use the extra memory without being forced to install 64bit drivers so there are no hardware backward compatibility issues, Apple is already requiring hardware makers to release driver packages with both 32bit and 64bit drivers inside so when Apple will permanently drop the 32bit kernel in a few years you'll probably have all your 64bit drivers already there (and already tested by people who tried using Leopard x64) without having to desperately go looking for modded drivers or drivers for similar hardware that could work like you have to do on Windows. It's a much better approach than Microsoft's that moved everything to 64bit caring only about applications but not about drivers and killed backward compatibility with XP 64bit drivers by accepting only signed drivers, on OS X you get all of the 64bit advantages without being required to dump any of your older incompatible hardware.
"It's widely known that many companies didn't release 64bit drivers for their hardware and that the older drivers for XP x64 have hard times working on Vista x64 because Microsoft requires signed certificates while on Vista 32bit you can run most XP drivers, including video and sound drivers without issues because no certificates are required, no need to ask to friends or look on teh interwebs, everybody knows that a lot of older hardware doesn't work on 64bit windows systems because hardware companies couldn't care less to port, test, and pay for WHQL certification for discontinued hardware, knowing that if they did then you'd have no reasons to buy newer hardware from them."

But Evil, are you not compareing apples to oranges here.  Apple has a draconian control on what hardware is available on their hardware.

Microsoft is not a hardware company (for the most part), when we are talking a Microsoft PC we are talking an OEM that chooses to use MS OS and usually hand picks a group of hardware for that system.  Although there is that idea of expansion of which a Microsoft PC has millions of more choices than the Apple PC.

Mentioning the point of 32 bit drivers in comparison to signed 64 bit drivers. It is a way to get control on drivers. Since in the 32 bit unsigned world 80% of BSOD's and general unstability were caused by those drivers without controls.

So the comparison would be. in the Apple world where a hardware Vendor has to to through apple before they can sell hardware for apple systems. is true for 32 bit and the 64 bit world.

in the microsoft world that wasn't true until the 64bit world at the consumer level. 

I personally was disappointed that MS didn't take the high ground and force 32 bit signed drivers also.

Douglas