This is kind of a re-hash of a reply that I made in another topic, but I thought that it might serve better as it's own thread and see what comes out of it.  Sorry if you've read this twice, but I think that I went a little off-topic in the last thread.
I really dont know what to make of the whole state of software right now.  As far as CPU's go, I dont understand the real technical details like why they are having problems with clock speeds on smaller dies or whatever. It seems to me that quad-core/single-die CPUs would not bring any significant increases to the table if you still are running an OS that doesnt even utilize 2 cores fully, let alone 4. I know that AMD has their lab in Europe that is supposed to be working on software/hardware integration, but if Micro$oft isn't involved or helping, what's the upside? I think that it's just such a waste of effort and money to market and release a product that can't be utilized to it's capacity because the software won't utilize it for another 5 years or more.  
Now, I know some will say: "But the software will come." Bullshit! HOW LONG HAVE WE WAITED FOR 64 BIT APPLICATIONS/GAMES TO GO MAINSTREAM?!!?!?!? Micro-fraud has been saying "64 bit will be the standard in 2 years from now" for over 5 YEARS!!!  You have more potential locked away in the hardware that you have now than will come out "new" in the next 2 years. I can guarantee that everyone who reads this has a 64 bit processor, but maybe 5 of you use WIN 64. Why? Because it's not supported on the back-end. How long ago did they release the 64 bit cpu's? Hell, I bought my Athlon64 2000+ back in 2000. Why don't they force 64-bit computing down everyone's throats like they did Crapta on new computers? Hell, why did they even bother making a 32-bit version of it? Oh, yeah... backwards compatibility with old products and software from when I owned a Gravis Ultrasound and Doom was the newest thing. Why not force your "partners" to make 64 bit games, drivers, and applications available? I don't know anything, but I bet that someone will tell me why...  
Seems to me that all this forward hardware development is great and AMD has some great things in the works (IF it works and WHEN it works are 2 totally seperate arguments). I think that instead of shrinking the dies and making the same products smaller, they should work on software integration and enable us to use the true potential that the chips that we have now.  
Oh, wait... that would kill their sales. Nevermind  
 
Postscript:  I do understand the economics of this with software makers wanting their products to be available to the largest number of potential users.  What troubles me is that no one seems to even care about the potential that's there for 64 bit computing when EVERYONE who has bought a computer in the last 5 years has a 64-bit capable rig, yet no one (read: software companies) wants to make the jump.  This is SAD...  

Linux has been 64-bit supportive for years... Can't see why M$ and Co can't get their finger out if the GNU crowd can pull it off for nothing....  

With the way the amount of RAM needed by PC's is increasing I think the MS prediction of 2 years now holds true. More and more people are buying 4gb RAM for their Vista rig's, there's even 2x2gb RAM kits. I'm sure you know that you can't use all 4Gb of RAM with a 32bit OS so eventually the end users are going to be forced into 64 bit by their requirements.  
Now the enthusiast crowd is going to move into this area of needing 64bit before the mainstream (mum+dad, office users), so software companies may ignore us somewhat for a while as the mainstream is we're the money's at.  
 
Basically the transfer is going to be slow and painful, but it is going to happen soon.

Try Linux. Just a thought. very true indeed not many apps are 64bit let alone multi threaded.

 
Not really a solution, Linux has the exact same problem as 64-bit, lack of software/support.
 
And just so I don't get minced, by software I mean programs like full budget 3D games, Industry standard software (CATIA/AutoCAD, not sure if these have a linux counterpart) and things like that, I've used Linux (Ubuntu) before and am well aware of the abundance of software that you can get for free  

 
You've hit the nail on the head.  There hasn't been a good reason.  CPU performance has been good enough for desktop users.  And RAM usage hasn't hit the limit until recently.  And 64bit linux usage is mainly in the server space since there's no 64bit flash support meaning a lot of websites don't work.
 
Now though we're starting to hit the limit with 4GB machines all over the place.
 
I've been using 64bit linux for the servers I administer for several years now and it's a must for me, but until 64bit builds of some of the critical packages I use for consumer stuff (as opposed to server stuff) like flash64 exists, I'm not switching even if it's faster.

 
im sure other people saw this... and i might very well be wrong, possibly, but for consumers i think they only had 32bit XPs/durons on s462 back then, and p3 and p4... the move to s754 a few years later brought 64bit/32bit capability... but even with 64bit capable cpus, the average user wasnt using anywhere near 4GB of memory... it was more like 512MB - 1GB (the average enthusiast still only has ~2GB)... so the main reason for 64bit wasnt quite needed, for most people... still isnt quite needed, but its getting there, as software becomes more bloated (read: vista)
 
there are performance improvements going with 64bit, no doubt... and with vista 64 being out, and actually supported (unlike xp 64)... were already seeing software being released... but, the timeline isnt anywhere near 7-8 years though... closer to half that... ...so only 4 or so years ago, most people didnt have 64bit s754 cpus, a few did though im sure, the early adopters... but the software industry isnt going to change overnight for a few early adopters though either

i fell asleep reading this

The real questing would be why go 64bit.  There really isn't even a need today for the average consumer.  Without the consumer there is no money in it.  With no money there is no software.  M$ is going there because there next OS will be crippled with out it (speculation).
 
In most applications there wouldn't be a huge gains in performance in the first place.  Most consumers are using PC's for the Internet, email and office type stuff, you don't need much ram to that.  I would almost challenge you by saying why can't the developer write code that doesn't use so much ram in the first place.  Think about it there are printer drivers that are 500Mb downloads that's equivalent to 10,000,000 pages of text.
 
I use to have a C64 back in the day with 64k of ram it could do quite a bit with that ram.  Word processing check, gaming check and I'm sure if it had been around in the mainstream email and surfing.
 
My First PC was 386 SX25 with 4Mb of ram and 42Mb hard drive.  Today it's E6600 4Gb of ram and around 1Tb of disk space.  It's true that it's faster and can do more but it's not what I would have expected considering the computing power.
 
64bit has it's purpose for sure and it's used in server environment where vast amounts of data are managed.  In consumer applications it's mostly a crutch for sloppy code running on a bloated OS.  Don't worry though it's just around the corner now, just hope that we're not all underwhelmed...

I think it has alot to do with the original concept of PC architecture, a lower cost alternative to the Motorola and Sparc processors. They were running 64 bit multi threaded applications years before others even considered it. x86 Architecture (in my opinion) was trying to compete by offering more raw power through MHz and eventually GHz at a lower cost. Motorola and Sparc where and are powerful processors but had lower frequencies.  Granted server applications came online in 64bit well before desktops, but it would be a big lose for software companies to not offer legacy support. If people can't find what they need for what they have they will either pirate the software or use open source. I would love to see a large shift in software but until the masses speak up, we will have to deal with what makes the most money for these companies and unfortunately that is 32bit software.

OldGoat said:

 
 
That's absolutely not true. Why would someone need a 64bit processor + few gigs of Ram to read this? The machine i'm using right now only have 128mb of RAM and 600mhz 32BIT intel celeron processor, and 2.5GB harddrive. It is certainly capable of viewing this thread.

You are blaming Microsoft for the low quality or complete lack of drivers for Windows 64 and/over Vista 64. You do realize that these drivers are not Microsoft's problem, but they need to be written and tested by the companies who make the hardware? For example the 8800 GTX still has problems on Vista, especially with SLI, but Vista has been available to nVidia's programmers for a year or so. Blame nVidia, not Microsoft. By the way, Microsoft has finally noticed the problem and now driver certifications for Vista 32 require that drivers for Vista 64 also pass the tests. That should soon make Vista 64 just as reliable as Vista 32, at least that's what MSFT tries to achieve.
 
Multithreaded programming exists, but it requires very good programmers and lots of testing. It's hard to achieve this in an open-source O/S simply because good programmers and testers often want to be paid a lot. BTW, that also explains why software is not ready for multicore CPUs yet, it's just that most programmers don't have the brain power and skills to write correct and big multithreaded programs. Easy things yes, sure, I wrote a couple myself, but when it comes to something massive you won't find enough skilled people. Companies don't push for it too much either because it would increase the cost of development and the risks of delays.

I think the OP hasn't taken into account that the symptom hes looking for an answer to is the same problem but with two threads to it.
First of all theres way hasn't support taken off for 64 bit OS and second why hasn't support or good use been implemented for dual core.
From my way of thinking software is going to always lag behind hardware. The hardware is needed to be there for the programmers to take advantage of. Once it is they only going to start to develope in a big way when demand is there. So once the hardware is there an OS has to be written for it, theres a couple of years gone. Once that is in place the multitude of companies and programmers can go away spend 6 monthes learning it before starting on some sellable software. So that covers the 64 bit OS and a fair chunk of his time frame eaten into.
Next dualcore, which pretty much will add a fair amount of dev time to any software due to it's complexity.
So yea that pretty much covers his 5 year wait.
Oh yes as an afterthought...how long would it take the bigger companies to develope software that allows your average joe programmer to be able to write software for dualcore utilization without having to delve into the complexities of load balencing etc
Well thats my views and thoughts, may be wrong, may be right, just my opinion.

This is my first post, but i'm a gamer to the core. Something that has always bothered me is the usage of Oblivian as a benchmark. I highly suspect that maybe this software might not have been given much thought as to what hardware was currently available. ( It was the first game that choked my machine). amd 4000, 850xt. I think programming is sloppier than most people are willing to admit. I can't wait until there's a viable alternative to ms as it's the king of bloatware.

I think you got something confused.  Vista can support four cores, it's four sockets that's the problem.
 
"HOW LONG HAVE WE WAITED FOR 64 BIT APPLICATIONS/GAMES TO GO MAINSTREAM"
 
If this is really such a problem, why not buy a Nintendo 64 and be happy.  We don't have those kinds of games, because there's not an overwhelming need for it.  Programming and consumer desire is part of the equation, but truth is, we really just don't need it yet.  Lots of applications out there throw 128-bit code at a processor, and the only thing that happens is that it's broken down into two 64-bit packets instead (I think).
 
Dual core is also nice, but the need, it just isn't there, especially when most games fall unto the graphics processor for it's needs, rather then the central processing unit.  A game that utilizes an x amount of cores; who cares if it's buggy and the graphics are choppy?

Apples new OS is running 64bit + 32bit natively at the same time, or something or other

 
 
That's absolutely not true. Why would someone need a 64bit processor + few gigs of Ram to read this? The machine i'm using right now only have 128mb of RAM and 600mhz 32BIT intel celeron processor, and 2.5GB harddrive. It is certainly capable of viewing this thread.
 
 
 
Perhaps he means that because 64-bit processors have been out for years now (desktop, that is), that it's a pretty damn good chance that you have a 64-bit processor?  Just a thought.  Not so sure he meant that you NEEDED it to view the thread...

Think of the millions of lines of code in any mature software product out today.
Photoshop, 3dmax, game engines, etc, etc.
Millions of dollars have gone into the writing of that code going back years. That is an investment most software companies can't afford to throw away and rewrite for multi-threading and 64bit. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
 
In terms of software efficiency. It takes time to write very tight and highly optimized code. Time is money so it's much easier to use a huge library of code even if you are only using one function, rather than unpick it just to extract what you need. And you never know what dependencies there are on other functions within the library.