"cvp" <goaway@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e$hdyWzCIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Milhouse Van Houten wrote:[color=green]
>> In terms of driver availability and application compatibility? In other
>> words, is it still a fight or are the devices and applications it doesn't
>> work with now down to the obscure? The latest evaluation of it I can
>> find is many months out-of-date.
>>
>> Also, does anyone know the memory delta on average between it and 32-bit?
>> I know it takes more but am not sure how much.
>>
>> Thanks[/color]
>
> I have it running on 2 laptops and 2 desktops.
> I can honestly say that I've had no problems finding 64-bit drivers. With
> one exception (an older Canon printer where I was surprised that they even
> had a 32-bit driver) I've found the hardware vendors provide
> both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. One of the laptops is a Lenovo X61T
> tablet and has a pile of drivers to install, but all the 64-bit versions
> were there. Likewise for one of the desktops which has serious Raid
> storage as well as a TV tuner.
>
> As far as apps are concerned, I've had a few (those with software pseudo
> devices) where I had to wait for any version of Vista support (all there
> now). All others run fine as 32-bit. One exception is a 32-bit app with a
> 16-bit install, but in that case merely copying over the directories from
> a working system and pointing to the .exe works fine.
>
> I also installed Virtual PC 2007 with a copy of XP under it to handle any
> possible exceptions, but can honestly say that apart from using it to
> accesss some capabilities in WMP10 I never fire it up.
>
> I also have 3 32-bit systems (only because they can't run 64-bit Vista)
> and I can't say I notice any difference at all in the memory usage.
> There's a very small disk overhead (a few extra copies of 32-bit apps in
> Vista) but maybe only a MB or 2.
>
> I see repeatedly advice warning of a lack of 64-bit drivers but my
> experience doesn't bear that out. But I would recommend checking with your
> system provider's download site as well as Intel/AMD's and the sites of
> any add-on hardware devices before taking the step.
>
> As far as stability and operation is concerned, I see no difference
> between 64-bit and 32-bit, in fact maybe from some of the comments here I
> have less problems than most.
>
> Hope that helps![/color]

Yes, thanks to everyone and particularly you for this thorough response.
I've quote the whole thing so it's in the record twice.

I can't explain where I got the idea that it consumes more memory for
itself -- the beta? reviews? -- but that's what stuck in my brain somehow.
It's great to know that it doesn't, that you don't need north of 2GB RAM to
be comfortable in it (2GB is plenty for what I run in 32-bit).

Not that it's important to me these days, but I also expected that it takes
a couple gigs more disk space, simply because the ISO is that much larger
(roughly), but that's also not really the case somehow.

So all in all, given that you do have a 64-bit system and don't have any
deal-breaking hardware without drivers -- or have an everyday app that just
doesn't work, whether it be because of a 16-bit installer or something
else -- I'm not seeing any reason to hold back any longer.

So while there may not be many compelling reasons to move to it, in my case
at least, there don't seem to be any reasons not to move to it, and that's
really what I was trying to understand.