I agree with you on what you said above.. But be carefull about talking about Mac's you don't want to get those guys started.   

I agree with a lot of what you've written above, and as I've said elsewhere, for me the answer on why 64-bit is that my system is a 64-bit system and by golly it's gonna run a 64-bit OS.

I see some people spreading F-U-D about Vista not running 32-bit applications and laugh.  While I'm sure there are real problems with it, I'd still bet that most of the problems running those applications are because of flawed software to begin with, or because people are trying to run applications that they could upgrade if they weren't so reluctant to spend a few $$ to get upgrades.

There are cases where you can't find versions of some things for 64-bit Vista -- Adobe Flash as an example.  You can run 32-bit Internet Explorer though, and use the 32-bit plug-in there.  It works just fine.

There are also cases of some pretty pricey applications (AutoCad type) that may cost several hundred (if not more) dollar$ for upgrades.  The programmers/publishers of that software may want a ton of money for upgrades to get you to 64-bit, and right now they may not really offer much by way of new features, speed/performance or other benefits that make it worth moving to 64-bit,  but over time 64-bit will take over just as 32-bit left 16-bit behind.

64-bit is the future.  32-bit will eventually be sneered at and talked about as a long lost memory.  Systems will support more memory, more disk space, more processors (quad core versus current dual core) and other things that make them speed demons compared to current generation stuff. 

Installing 64-bit Vista and getting used to the new interface, the UAC, and the system in general is a good idea for anyone that has just a modicum of patience.  While you may struggle a little with drivers, or applications, if you stay fairly vanilla in your desires you'll be just fine with out-of-the-box drivers, and built-in applications or other inexpensive solutions.  :bigthumbsup:

I'd love to use 64bit Vista as I use really memory hungry apps and such. But until better third party support has been established, I'm sticking with 32bit.

Not practical for the 64-bit question, but to look into or test different platforms (I still have customers with NT4/9x/2k installed and I can take look into different Linux distributions also) I began to use Virtual Machines via VMWare a lot. No need to have 10 physical machines running with that. 'Just' one powerful machine needed.

With respect to the two larger posts.. yes.. if ur an IT Pro it is a no brainer... no one wants to be left in the dust.

Fact remains however..99.9 of us other folks arent IT Pro's and when your new 64 bit PC with a 64 bit OS refuses to play nice with the first 3 VITAL appz you use on a daily basis..its a no brainer for ME to Format c: and jump right back in the sack with ol' reliable.

I'd have a hard time remembering being more frustrated than the first 2-3 day of 64 bit.

Rather bothers me that Vista is being pushed so far ahead of adequate support from most 3d party software\hardware vendors.

Im sure one day 64 bit computing will be the norm.. today..it is not.. and IMO.. far from it.

I think it's a good thing that the OS is pushing head and not lagging behind here. Getting the OS to support it is the first step.

not if its unusable.    

It's unusable because there isn't good enough third party support. But the OS has to be first in line. No good if third parties want to go 64bit but the OS won't.

You all complain to much. If new software with flaws does not come out and get used. How is it that the coputer industry is going to get any better. It would be stupid to fix software that has no problems

Yes, I'm taking a pretty serious look at VMWare for that reason.

Fact of the matter on the driver and third party support is that the developers, OEMs, hardware manufacturers, etc., have had Vista available to them for well long enough to have no excuse at all for not already having the drivers and apps updated.

Microsoft had the release candidates out for a long, long time.  Any manufacturer or developer worth their salt should have been testing upgraded applications for most of the last year.  While Microsoft could have changed things and made life tough on their partners, they normally don't.

Anyone that wants to use the lack of third party support as a crutch is welcome to, but it's not Microsoft's fault and expecting the world to sit still just for those things is silly.  Make the jump and start jumping up and down hollering for support of your needs.  If you don't, then the developers and manufacturers will continue to have the old excuse of "our customers aren't demanding support in those areas" to rest on.

Granted, I've dealt with some idiots along the way that make things difficult about doing upgrades and moving on to the next level of things.  I'm still not able to upgrade systems in my daytime job to run IE7 because of problems with a vendor that hasn't upgraded their VPN to support IE7.  I've been victimized by lack of support for IE7 in other places too, including a web site I subscribe to for comics sent to my e-mail.  Those same folks have had plenty of time to get with the times, upgrade their busted components and get with supporting the latest and greatest standards.

They don't because no one has forced them to, and because they can feel important if they have to be worked around.  Sorry, I'm not working around anyone.  I'll kick your butt to the curb and move on.  If you don't want to play in the new sandbox, that's fine by me.  I'll enjoy my shiny new 64-bit operating system and buy apps that do run on it, buy hardware that supports it, and support vendors that aren't lagging behind the technology curve.

Ok.. so.. if your me.. and the apps that you use on a daily basis..that are vital.. DO NOT work.. and you rely on these apps.. and you use this as your arguemnt for not going 64 bit..Your using it for a crutch?

Is that what your saying?   

That is the absolute truth.

wouldnt let me Edit..

I would venture that many MANY companies do not have the product development team that Microsoft does, given all the time in the world some companies cannot keep up with a money hungry juggernaut much though they may want to.

Im willing to bet its almost like the Wal-Mart phenomena.. some smaller software companies will go under because Microsoft can't cool its heels long enough to let everyone catch up.

ANYway.....You would kick Photoshop to the curb? Then what would you replace it with?

Thats a very narrow minded view on it. You have to walk in others shoes before you tell them to throw down their crutches.

Somethings cant be substituted. You would throw away years of experience in your main applications for a small increase in speed and security?



Not on my planet. Sorry.   

Not true. Lenovo still gives you a choice between XP and Vista, though Vista is the standard.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but I have *never* had to deal with a 64 bit machine, and I have to deal with macs frequently. Linux is more of something our tech staff this year just all decided to jump in the bandwagon on (I think 5 out of 12 all use it on personal computers now), but it's something we've only been asked for help with one or two times. It depends where you're working. If you're in industry, maybe. If you're doing IT work for a university, the press to learn new technology is just not there. Yes, we've gotten Vista machines that we've had to work on already, and we're working on getting a copy to play with, but much like our collective experience with macs, you can abstract the vast amount of you windows knowledge to other windows systems.

And when all else fails, there's always the internet. =D