Could they possibly be thinking about making HyperV on gui-less server 8 competitive with ESX? VMWare has been eating their lunch for a good while now, and the licensing changes in 5.0 have rocked the boat a little. HyperV was a tough sell before due to, among other things, the extra resources you had to dedicate to running the host OS. If MS could slim that down, maybe they get some market share back. 2008 Server Core was/is an OK start, but there wasn't really enough you could do with it. It is great for the stuff you can do.

Once you learn the path to follow, Tubular is a piece of cake. Yes, many lost lives and much profanity is used in the finding of that path. Also, don't grab the second P balloon right away -- Wait until you're about to lose the one you have. That will give you the extra 10 seconds you need to properly dodge those stinking footballs.

Wow, your an idiot.
Ha! Karma really bit you square on the ass, huh?

Doom (and 2, and especially 3) spawned things to the sides mostly. If I had a nickel for every "oh, look, another narrow hallway. I wonder when the doors on either side of me are going to open and the Hell Knights are going to come snarling out" moment...

No. They put motion controls in because they're porting it to the Wii, and they have to.

Pics or it didn't happen?

Yep. The problem isn't getting the binaries to run, the problem is with getting 32bit versions of all the libraries they need to work alongside the 64 bit versions of the libraries (A whole new walk through "Dependency Hell". Those "incompetent fools" in Redmond have a much tighter control over which libraries ship with their OS (Most of them are still of the 32bit variety). You see, you can run 32bit code and 64bit code on the same machine, but not in the same process. Since 64bit Windows runs a 64bit kernel, it still had it's problems when it was new, mainly in the area of device drivers, which all had to be recompiled in 64bit to work with the new 64bit kernel. The rest of it's still pretty much 32bit (with the new Exchange server being a notable exception, but it ships with it's own set of 64bit dll's).

To run the 32-bit flashplayer natively, because your browser and all it's pluigns have to have the same number of bits, so to speak.

Yes, I know about nspluginwrapper. Yes, it works OK, but it has it's own quirks, and it takes slow to a whole new level.

So, there's 3 choices, 32-bit firefox with 32-bit flashplayer, 64-bit firefox with nspluginwrapped 32-bit flashplayer, and 64-bit firefox with 64-bit flashplayer. The first isn't an option for me without a reinstall, the second sucks, and the third also sucks, but, IMHO, sucks less.

So, to sum up a way-too-long answer; What's a convincing reason to use 64-bit flashplayer? Answer: Because or all the options for 64-bit Ubuntu, it sucks the least.

So it can use up to 2TB of RAM at once? :)

Not speaking from personal experience or anything...
If you decide to load a 64-bit version of a popular distro that doesn't have decent packages for 32-bit firefox (thank you very much, Ubuntu). Last I tried, 32-bit firefox won't even build or run on 64-bit ubuntu, even with copious use of getlibs.

Those of us (OK, those of YOU. I obviously fail.) with a modicum of foresight installed 32-bit, because, really, what does 64-bit anything gain you that's not outweighed by problems?

Slashdot -- "Last year's news, today!!!"

I've been running this since I saw it announced on Slashdot a year and some ago (and linked to the same article, I think). It's better than Alpha quality, IMHO. Still slow as hell. At least they got the sound-out-of-sync-with-video problem on youtube fixed.