"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:O3fCIfyCIHA.2280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Vista 64-bit has always been "ready for primetime" - it's the hardware
> manufacturers who are behind the eight-ball. Personally, I don't
> recommend that anyone use 64-bit Windows unless they need to ... and if
> they need to, they know they need to.
>
> I have no idea what "memory delta" you're talking about - I've seen no
> such comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on the same hardware platform.[/color]

I finally recalled where I saw this intimated (see below). I'm not
suggesting that anyone should run it with 1GB (or 32-bit Vista, for that
matter), but the fact here that the app speeds didn't reach parity until
64-bit was bumped to 2GB suggests to me that 64-bit uses more memory than
32-bit. And it never did reach parity when it came to multitasking.

[url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128305-page,4-c,vistalonghorn/article.html[/url]
[url]http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=128305&page=4&zoomIdx=1[/url]
"Our tests of Vista's 64-bit version indicate that while programs generally
run slower on it than they do on the 32-bit version, adding more RAM can
help wipe out the difference (see the "Apps Run Faster on 32-Bit Vista" test
report). With 1GB installed RAM, the Polywell and Micro Express PCs ran our
Photoshop test 12 percent and 25 percent slower, respectively, in 64-bit
Vista. When we moved both systems up to 2GB, the difference disappeared
completely.

"The delta on the multitasking test was much smaller--between 4 and 7
percent, regardless of the PC's memory configuration--and our gaming test
results showed almost no difference. We don't know how often hardware
vendors will put their latest drivers through the full testing and signing
process for 64-bit Vista, but these initial results suggest that, as long as
your system packs plenty of memory, you won't be taking much of a hit by
going 64-bit."