There is barely any typical software than can take full advantage of 4 cores and 6 cores, 8 is stretching it. What software can use it is relatively specialized for a specific task more suited to professionals or the real hardcore enthusiast. It's not as if the software will magically appear in a year or two or even three. Sure, eventually BD will be able to flex its muscle, and by then there will be improvements to the processor architecture which make it even better. In the computer section he pointed out the system is mostly for medium gaming and HTPC, and BD is no where near a good bang for the buck for uses like that.
I'm actually going to side with you but for a different reason. YES, there is a lot of software that doesn't make much use of the Zambezi multicore design, and Windows 7's scheduler isn't designed to allocate processes to its modules intelligently (AMD claims to be working with Microsoft to get this right in Windows 8).
BUT if you ask me, the real reason Bulldozer is a rather disappointing product is not because it can't "flex its muscle". The reason why people are so disappointed is its IPC (instructions per clock), or otherwise known and per-hertz performance. It is simply dominated by Sandy Bridge in this area, while containing nigh on twice as many transistors.
However, YES, a Bulldozer chip is possibly very future ready and may in in the future become extremely capable. Why? In my opinion, the reason the chip has much untapped potential is the FMA4 instruction set.
Assuming that perhaps the reason the chip has so many transistors but performs so badly is because the new transistor count was dedicated to executing its new instruction sets (FMA4, XOP), the chip could perform exceptionally with programs optimized for these instructions. In benchmarks
known to make use of FMA4, the FX chip jumps forward.
The problem is that FX is rather inherently designed more as a server chip (in my opinion) and while it is an excellent design in that regard (scalability, per-core voltage gating, rather aggressively priced) due to the fact that most servers are coded manually, it is a rather underwhelming consumer chip and really isn't quite what anyone hoped it would be, after so many years.