I'm rolling my eyes...



Hippie I like the points you make. You are so right. It's all about money. This Dell I own has been around for awhile as it still has a Windows 98 SE COA on it. It has a Celeron 1 Gig CPU and 256 megs of memory and I don't have any problems using XP nor Fedora 7. No bottlenecks at all. They want you to buy a new PC because like everything else it's all about money.

Anyone out there trying to dual boot Vista 23 and 64 on the same partition? Or is that not possible? Just wondering because I have a Core 2 Duo and am currently running Vista 32 but was thingking about trying Vista 64 as well. I know you cannot upgrade 32 to 64 but could I force Vista 64 into a different folder and not trash teh Vista 32 install?

I'm not sure I'm that desperate for speed......  

*puke*  

I was going to add Vista Ultimate 64 to this one here soon. But changed my mind and will be building a new machine to go here with my others. That will make 4 computers here on this desktop then. Vista Ultimate 32 bit, 64 bit, XP Pro and Server 2003. Plus if Vista ever works with the new server 2008 when it is finally released. I'll be upgrading to that also and getting rid of my server 2003.



You are completely right Hippie~! They want your money first up. But I want their software and programs no matter what it cost. To make money now days - you must stay in the game. Sure it is a money game and everyone plays it. But I have to stay on top of that to be part of that ever so quickly moving game to win. There are always problems and people with the same. The real deal is we all have to find a place to work those things out. Just to get what we want. Otherwise you are just what you are and where you are in the fast moving world of technology.

There are some real good reasons to move over to 64 bit. But with the way things are for systems running such. Are you happy with it? Good then we should be happy for you and hope that everyone else using 64 bit is as patient as you are. Thus problems will in time be worked out and everyone will get exactly what they paid for~! MAYBE?

SGT

I run XPx64 on my work system for the simple fact that I have 4Gb RAM and x32 anything will not recognize all of it. I do quite a bit with VMWare Workstation and I need that extra RAM.
At home, I also have 4GB RAM, but am running Vista Ultimate 32 bit. As soon as I manage to put World of Warcraft aside I will most likely upgrade to XPx64 as Vista just offers nothing at all for me.... (a topic for any number of other threads)  

Even eight months on from the original post (did anyone look at the date?) the points are still valid. There are few 64bit apps around and most 32bit apps don't run as fast on a 64bit O/S as they do on a 32bit O/S. Quite a few don't work at all (see the meny posts here about 64bit compatibility).

64bit is not ready for prime time yet and developers just haven't the resources to pour into it    

I'm using Vista 64-bit on my home PC and haven't run into any trouble at all. Every app/game I've wanted to run on it has without trouble. Hardware's been a bit more problematic, but only for wireless networking adapters. Seems no company wants to write a 64-bit wireless driver, but luckily some intrepid gamer did and posted it online for the rest of us.

I use 64 bit because I have 4 gigs of ram. When I use 32 bit the OS see's 3.5 gigs which I can deal with, but I recently found out 1.5 gigs was being relocated elsewhere and games where only seeing 2 gigs of ram. I could deal with 512mb not showing up but 2 gigs not being used in a game? No thanks.

Fuzzy,
I have yet to see a single instance of that happen to me on XPx64. It runs like a champ. What is the source of that statement?

Yeah.. I run 32 bit apps just as fast as they do in the x86 OS, that statement is..... false.....

Because Vista 32-bit is limited to 2 GB of RAM while 64-bit can address all of 4 GB (maybe more, I'm not sure). On my low-end dual core system, I often see more than 60% memory useage when I have lots of programs running. It's gone as high as 78% I think.

When was that? That could only have been Intel 286 vs Intel 386. But I was not aware that there was a time when a 286 was _faster_ than a 386 (which could also be used a s 16 bit CPU of course).

Which games would run in both 16 and 32 bit mode?

I have two 64 Bit Macs.

And although the operating system is 32 Bit, they can both run 64 Bit applications.

I don't have a single one of those.