Must say...

Drew1903 "I went rattling on about x86 vs x64, geeesh.  That wasn't your topic, at all LOL, oops."  

Taking this as a segway, when you do suppose that Microsoft is going to stop supporting 32-bit hardware?  I doubt that one has been built in the last decade, and probably longer. 

Support for 32-bit hardware is yet another legacy component that W10 drags around, like SMB 1.0, outdated versions of NET, Internet Explorer and so on.  Linux, for the most part, dropped 32-bit support last year or the year before, as did Apple, and it seems to me that the time has come for Microsoft to do that, too.

Drew1903 

"Small doesn't or isn't, really, going to cut it, anymore.  Which, means I can, still, say its days are fading; even though referring to a different 'it', this time. "

When you say (correctly) that "Small doesn't or isn't, really, going to cut it, anymore.", I ask, "Is this headed in the right direction?"

I agree that "My drug of choice is more ..." is the direction that the industry is driving us, but if we follow that direction, we'll end up with a computing environment like Mitt Romney's much-mocked station wagon, loaded up to the point where wheels sag and the dog is tied on top.

As you pointed out earlier, few consumers use 10% of the OS/hardware combo that defines their computing environment, but both Microsoft and manufacturers keep piling on more, to the point where (as you pointed out) that mid-range consumer laptops cost over $1,000 and desktops even more.  Consumers are paying for things that they don't use and probably won't use.

Windows 10 is getting more and more loaded with new features and increasingly resource hungry -- visual effects, few of which add much in the way of functionality for most consumers -- all the while dragging legacy components along behind to accommodate enterprise users. Manufacturers accommodate that insanity by building more and more power into the hardware that they sell to consumers, even though most consumers don't need anywhere near that power.  

At the same time, the computer market is losing share, as fewer and fewer consumers buy into it, preferring smartphones and other mobile devices as their primary computing environment.  Is it any wonder, given where the computer market is going?  Studies show that an enormous percentage of consumers spend 80-90% of their computing time surfing the web, dealing with e-mail, and communicating in simple ways (e.g. texting).  Smartphones and other mobile devices are ideal for that level of use, and powerful desktops/laptops are overkill.

Enterprises aren't buying into the "My drug of choice is more ..." game, either.  I'm retired now, but I spent most of my career in the enterprise, and I can't help but notice that there is a decided split has developed between the business and consumer markets.  Business-oriented desktops/laptops are higher quality, more durable and easier to maintain than consumer desktops/laptops, but specs are lower because the business environment doesn't need all the bling that the consumer market shovels onto consumers.  

At times, the current market is just insane, and the school environment is an example.  The school market is important, both because of the numbers (schools are more and more equipping the kids with laptops for use in the classroom) and because the environment in which kids grow up influences their future choices (that's one of the reasons that Microsoft has put on a push in the school market, now dominated by Chromebooks, and it is also one of the reasons that Microsoft seems to be moving in the direction of developing a Windows Lite version, without all the bling and without the legacy components).  We've now reached the point where the Windows-recommended specs for school-use laptops aren't going to be usable much longer.  It is ridiculous to be at a point where an 8-year-old needs a $1,000+ computer to do basic schoolwork.

We are on a collision course with ourselves within this industry.  We are now at the fender-bender level, but it isn't going to be long before the collision turns into a train wreck.

Let me put this in personal terms.  I use two laptops on a regular basis.  The first is a mid-range Dell Latitude 7280 business computer (i5, 8gb RAM, 128gb SSD, Intel 620 graphics), cost about $1,650 US.  The second is a low-end Dell Inspiron 3185 consumer computer (AMD 9-9420e, 4gb RAM, 128gb SSD, AMD r5 graphics), cost about $400 US.  Why do I have both?  For a simple reason: I use the 3185 in the locomotive shop at the railroad museum where I volunteer, a physical environment that is dirty, and I'm not willing to risk a $1650 US laptop in that environment. 

Mine is but one small (and uncommon) need for a low-end computer.  But I think that my situation is indicative, in the sense that the industry is moving, seemingly faster and faster, in a "My drug of choice is more ..." direction, forcing consumers with low-end needs to buy mid-range desktop/laptops at 3-4 times the price, simply because the low-end computers won't work much longer.  That's not a good thing.

Schools are now in that position.  Microsoft specified Celeron/Pentium 32gb eMMc laptops for school use, and then, as 1809 came along, told schools to add 16gb SD cards to those computers in order to accommodate the upgrade, and now, just a few months later, has informed schools that 1903 is going to "reserve" an additional 7gb of space on the hard drive for future upgrade use.

Microsoft is rapidly abandoning for the school market, leaving the market to Chromebooks, and that is a shame.  I've read the rumors about Windows Lite development, and I hope that Windows does develop that verison of Windows.  It might keep Windows in the low-end market.