Does anyone know what the real difference between Vista's 32-bit version and 64-bit version's?????

yeah, save yourself a lot of misery and stick to XP! VISTA SUCKS IN ALL FLAVORS! I know because I have had to deal with both. Vista is a cheap ripoff of OS X!

Windows XP 64X evolved to Vista! There are things in Vista that will drive you bonkers like asking you twice to perform any command. You can turn off all the extras but it still is an OS X ripoff! Just go OS X if you need the GUI interface!

IF and I mean BIG IF!!!!

If your computer has more than 4GB of RAMM then you either need WINDOWS XP 64X or Vista to make use of the RAMM over 4GB. THE ONLY TWO JUSTIFICATIONS FOR HAVING THAT MUCH RAMM ARE THESE: You are a FREAKY HARD CORE GAMER playing the most graphic intensive games or you are doing graphics work and make use of the huge amount of processor space the computer has. Some Audio actually needs huge amounts of RAMM because scoring 64 tracks of music (Full Orchestra) takes a lot of power!

If you are a average user and want something a little more reliable go OS X! Hard core power user go Windows.

Just my little ol' opinion you alls!

Oh and as far as computer architecture goes the P4 Intel Chips with Hyperthread were the predecessors to Core Duo and Quad Core. Granted HT is fading out in favor of Core DUO they basically are the same thing.

Vista does work better with Quad Core but Core Duo works perfectly fine for XP.

The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit is how the RAMM bus divides information through the processor. If I remember this when I built my Windows 64x Bit machine was this, a normal computer (WITH HT) has 8 information pipelines through the processor and RAMM bus where a 64 bit machine has 16. Oddly if raw speed is important you still need to go P4 to get speeds over 2.2 GHZ because the Core Duo and Quad core sacrifice speed for raw number of redundant processing power. On the right MOBO a P4 can be successfully over clocked to 5.4 GHZ!

I think the only reason you want to get Vista 64 over Vista 32 is because you can install more RAM on it. You can of course install more RAM on a 32 bit, but it won't be registered (recognized) by the OS.

32bit OS-es (such as Vista or XP) only go as far as 3GB, while 64bit goes 4Gig or more.

That's the biggest advantage so far that counts right now, of course there are many advantages of having a 64bit operating system, but it hasn't been taken advantage of by software , or at most- only a fraction of software actually do.

Nevermind the fact, that 4 gig today is sort of overkill actually, I have yet to see anything that needs that much RAM to be used and if there is, then the software is not adequately optimized.

Thanks to both of you, i was thinks the ram was the major diff. but wasn't sure, on one of my comps, i run vista 32-bit, with a quadcore, and 2gb of ddr2, and wasn't sure if it was worth going to the 64-bit

Is your microprocessor 32-bit or 64-bit? Hint, hint. :)

ya know i'm not sure, i guess i should find out.

Forgive the intrusion, but.....
as mentioned, unless you are doing either graphics intensive or cpu [central processing unit --is it intel or amd?] intensive (mathematical/scientific computations, you compile your own programs, or are [as mentioned] a raging gamer) you won't really notice the speed differences between 32 bit and 64 bit architectures.
The only reason to 'need' a 64 bit OS is using some programs/data base systems that require HUGE amounts of memory.
hth
will

Its and intel, and i do a little programming with VB, but i do massive amounts of multitasking, i have 5 monitors on my desktop and 2 for my laptop, and when i use my multisim for electronics design it interferes with me doing other things, but even at that no i don't really NEED a 64-bit, but i was just looking into it, mostly out of curiosity

How about the simple reason that Micro$oft needs more money? They can't just stop existing because everything already has been done. Got to make it something you might think you still need!

(I don't, sure as hell).

While most people don't need more than 4gigs of ram, it does seem as if you could benefit from more ram. If you are already at the 3gig limit it may be worth it for you to upgrade to a 64bit OS to take advantage of more ram. More ram would allow you better multitasking performance especially if you pair with a mulit-core proc.

Not just system ram. Just upgraded my system with dual 1 GB NVidia cards. My system screams now. Even on Vista. I actually heard it laughing at the system requirements for Crysis yesterday. Vista works well once you disable half of the "bells and whistles" Microsoft put into it. Sort of.

Crysis is cool. One thing I do not get from either Microsoft or Crytek, is that if you have a good thing, why make it worse?

In farcry, you'd pick up things as you touch them. So, you can still be holding someone at gun point, while getting your health and ammo.

In farcry2, you have to keep pressing buttons, and looking for a hand icon.

In farcry, you use one button to engage and disengage various functions, such as getting in/out of vehicle.

In farcry2, you have to use different ones to engage and disengage.

Why? Beats me...

I tried the demo. Not a game I would buy though, unless they changed some things. Having to manually pick up ammo got annoying real quick.

windoze hasn't had a decent OS in a long time. its always oceans behind the *nix trend

the big difference between vista 32 and vista 64 --> the 64 bit OS can count higher and crash just as often

I notice the diffence...64-bit is a pain in the bloody bum, So many things wont install correctly all because it's the 64 bit and not the 32. damn damn damn that's all i have to say

i say stick with XP

a raised eyebrow???? one doth think your thinking something sir

Far Cry was made by Crytek and published by Ubisoft, Crytek was purchased by EA and that is when they released Crysis...which actually kind of sucked if you look at what they could have done with the game. After license disputes between Crytek and Ubisoft, Ubisoft released Far Cry 2 as the developer and publisher. Far Cry 2 could have been a lot better than it was, but then again Crytek is eventually going to be taken out of the market as is the classic EA way...buy the company, publish a few games with them, take their technology, and lynch the company...then horribly screw up the technology.