once I got mine.. I was hooked.. smooth fast and stable.. what more could I want?

Once they iron_out the compatibility "issues" with a few things (some drivers come to mind), i'm positive that even Vista will need to make room for the next OS which has already been announced, right?

Stuck at 32 here. CPU could tackle it anyway. Pipelining registries on a gap this wide must accelarate beyond a quad feed through, that's a given!

Hate LCD graphics, though.

 ive yet to find one that dont work maybe the 32 bit ones arent as snappy as the 64 bit ones but they seem to work just like on a 32 bit machine. IIm running WB,IP,OD,Winamp,CurFx,DX. etc

I switched to 64-bit at home about two weeks ago now and it's just been a great experience.  Memory issues are a thing of the past.  Now my only realistic limit is how much memory I can fit in the box.

Generally speaking 32-bit apps work fine with 64-bit.  You only see problems with apps that integrate tightly with your system such as anti-virus and security applications.  For example, I can't use Eset's NOD32 v3 because it does not support 64-bit yet.  I have to run the old 2.7 version.  Same with some of my old system tweak utilities.  But games, regular apps like graphics tools, internet apps etc have no problem at all with V64.  In fact, in some cases they benefit (like games).

I installed Vista64 when it first came out and the only compatibility problem I've ever had was a 64bit driver for my epson scanner. I built a new rig just for vista64 and paid around $500 for 4 gigs of ram back then. It hurts a little to see the same memory selling for less than a $60 now but that's the way it is and it was worth it. 

Two gigs is the minimum for vista64 as it uses 1.5 all by itself so I just had too have 4. I can shut down a hungry game open a browser and not have too wait for windows to let go of the resources before it responds. For the first time a pc felt fast. It was a glorious new day.

Okay, so from you all are saying getting a new computer with Vista 64bit OS on it should really be a 'no brainer' decision.

Only thing that I should be looking at then is the version of Vista, how much memory and of course the CPU.  Dual or Quad core?

I'm running Vista 64 bit (8GB, Q6600). I was running a game the other day, minimised it, forgot it was running (was at a menu) and fired up another game. The other game ran fine, and I didn't realise until I closed the game I was in and went back to the desktop and saw the minimsed game.

(One of the games was SoaSE - just can't remember 100% which was which. IIRC I minimsed SoaSE to try out the Political Machine Express I installed via Impule).

Super sweet

does that mean that Impulse and DemiGod will have 64bit versions now?

I do so hate to install to the x86 directory.

I would never go back to 32bit. In fact, I just put Vista64 on my laptop as well.

The only drawback: Cisco doesn't have a 64bit compatible VPN-client.

I dont like being the microft basher du jour, but ...

I should point out - for the sake of fairness - that looking at the main consumer operating systems, its only Windows (and only consumer/workstation versions of it) that has issues with 4GB+ total ram on 32-bit.

Macs have been on 64-bit for a while now, ofc.

Linux, can work with up to 64GB of ram on 32-bit. Although PAE is necessary for a process to be able to access an address range greater than 4GB, most things that might need to do so, do - for example Sun's xVM products.

XP/Vista's 3.3GB 32-bit limit is NOT a limit with 32-bit OSes, but a limit caused by 20 years of accumulated bad-design-decision cruft, and their decision to turn said cruft into a marketing ploy.
Implementing in the Vista consumer OS the same tech for large-memory address used by servers (including 32-bit windows servers) would have meant drivers needing to be rewritten, but oh wait, they had to do that aaanyway

And if you ask "why a marketing ploy", that's because when memory ranges are the same, the advantage of 64-bit is actually pretty negligible, apart from a very small number of applications.
With current compilers, the applications that can actually make use of all those extra parallel maths operations is pretty tiny, meaning your only real advantage is the extra registers. If anything, the performance gap between 32-bit and 64-bit is shrinking.

I haven't reached the point where I see myself needing more than 4G of Ram... I'm sure the day will come, but it hasn't yet.

i switched to vista 64bit from windows XP 64bit (actually 2003 server kernel). 64bit has been around for so many years, and is so much better.

i've been running vista ultimate64 since the week vista was released and haven't regretted a second of it. there were some issues with drivers for my HP laser printer for the first 3 or 4 weeks but that's the only hardware issue i had. i really enjoy having 8 gigs of ram, too!

zoomba, i've been using nod32 since i got vista. version 3 does run on vista64. i'm perplexed as to why it won't work on your system.