friend of mine tells me don't bother getting an X2 on Home Edition, is he

All versions of XP run dual core processors. There is virtually no consumer dual core software out there except for some processes in Photoshop CS2, and even those are limited. The media touts the ability to multi-task more efficiently on dual core processors.My experience with the AMDX2 has been that this is an exaggeration if your are trying to run two processor intensive applications simultaneously. (Who would believe the advertiser driven computer press lies, or at least just pbuttes on manufacturer hype uncritically?). It is clearly faster to do so at a given clock speed than a single core cpu but your are not going to see the equivalent of two independent computers running simultaneously. Both AMD and Intel will be issuing new pin outs and chipsets after the first of the year. Intel will likely redesign their dual core to be more like the AMD rather than two cpus just bolted together. As it stands running the 64 bit flavor of Windows is only a few notches less frustrating than running Linux. Most 32 bit software will run on Win64, although most studies show it runs about the same as on WinXP and sometimes slower. Alas your printer, scanner, etc probably does not have a 64 bit driver and may not work at all. Your supercharged 3d video card will probably have drivers but they will not be as sophisticated as those for 32bit Windows. There is little real world need for 64 bit, dual core processing for the vast majority of computer users (most business users could easily get by with Pentium II level performance) and unfortunately the PC game market is losing out to console based gaming so even that market segment is not really driving technologic change.