Memory resources would have to be necessary with 64 bit pathways.
The design has a primary goal of adding more floating point calculations per cycle.
The only way they would be useful is adding more cache and more ram to keep the entire system flowing and assisting the output.

My real concern is the API, Task Manager, & necessary processes for JIT to actually require in the startup.
I was totally disapointed when I looked at my task manager after every program installation from Microsofts own platforms.
The numbers just kept going up and up and up wasting all of the real estate and complicating 3rd party development for memory handling.
If the manufacturer isn't able to handle garbage cleanup for necessary runtime services at any given time, how can the developers hope to?
From an IT standpoint, I won't touch this OS with a 10 foot pole.
Supporting it, managing it or otherwise regular use.
I am not seeing any gains in efficiency as a home user at all.

"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:%23NDdDwDDIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
"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."