I don't think Steve was thinking of allowing for larger records, but rather lowering overhead-costs associated with managing fewer pages in the page-pool if the I/O costs for loading a larger page is negligible on modern hardware.

Microsoft would have to do some bench-marking to see if the vast majority of applications running on typical hardware would not be negatively impacted by a larger page-size if top-end hardware may benefit. Maybe even allow the sysadmin to choose the optimum page-size for his hardware when installing the server (if Microsoft did a good job with their source-code, they may be able to compile the server-kernel for different page-sizes).