Speaking of RAM. Is more than 2GB needed?
Well, read here:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/07/08/is-more-memory-better/1
In many games somewhat better framerate but savegames and alt-tabbing out to windows is certainly faster with 4GB

Same here. Was about time I retired my Prescott system and started from scratch. Decided to get with the times and built something that would serve me a few years (once again, serve ME, I know stuff goes "obsolete" every 3-6 months, so you spoiled rich noobs stfu with your "it won't last you years" bs!)

Got Vista Ultimate 64. I am not as pleased with it as Silus is. I had XP32 and then upgraded and felt like I was taking a big performance hit even though I was able to use the extra memory. Performance reminds me of Server 2003; takes forever to start up or shutdown, applications take longer to start up, but a decent trade off for increased stability. XP was obviously stable but when something did go wrong, I had to restart a few services to fix some problems. Not true for Vista (yet). Development, Game, and Digital Audio Workstation PC.

I will not rant on my specs let's just say I exceed what is required for Vista ;)

I recently upgraded from Vista x86 to Vista x64 myself. Having 8GB of usable RAM is a wonderful thing. Runs like a dream.

I know I'm one of them. Upgraded my system fully, including 4 GB of RAM, so a 64 bit OS was the way to go. Since I wanted to try Vista, I didn't even look back and this far, I'm quite happy!

Switched to Vista x64 with 6GB of RAM. It ran a tiny bit sluggish at first....then I turned off Aero. All of a sudden there was a party in my computer and everyone was invited.

In sane terms, its been awesome.

I am not too concerned i am already on 64 and i can see all my 8gb of ram. And now it cost 100 bucks for 4gb 2xgb sticks

As much as I don't want to move to Vista, I know it's my only choice. Right now I have 4GB of RAM and a 8800 GTS 512 running XP 32-bit. I have 3.2GB of total system RAM left. My upgrade is a pair of 7950's.

I am not looking forward to this. Not only do I have to upgrade to Vista, but I have to upgrade to Vista x64. Not a fan and not happy.

So, since SGTLindy is probably posting a lot of really bad BS since he's a troll ...

Anyway, Vista is pretty good ... When? In most situations ... so let's break down a few misconceptsion.

*Vista is not really a complete resource hog. Need proof? Open up a program in Vista and open up a program in XP. The memory used will increase a lot more in XP than Vista ... Simple reason that some people still don't get is that Vista's actually USING your RAM for something useful. In XP, you just have like a stick of memory sitting around sucking 1.8 V which is quite useless ...

*Dude, 1 GB of RAM? 2GB might as well be the norm today. It's only 20 dollars for a gig now adays, even having 2GB for 25 bucks after rebate. (Check the dealnews.com sections) ... Stop whining, and fork over 10 bucks for better Vista performance. It's that simple.

[BTW, it's a wise decision to NOT buy RAM upgrades for those of you who don't build your computers ... get them at some e-tailer and upgrade yourself]

*64-bit Vista's compatibility has definitely gotten a lot better ever since companies started deciding that they might as well make x64 drivers. Sure, some programs might not work ... but why put the blame entirely on Microsoft? Isn't it the other companies fault as well?

All in all, I feel like ever since the beginning, Vista was better than XP. But that's because I bought a computer during the Conroe craze when my old one broke. Sometimes I wanted to go back to XP ... but Vista just made loading up programs soooo damn smooth (Keep in mind, most of my programs are Vista compatible) ... Especially when you load a lot of start up stuff ... XP would rather load all those before letting you open a program, where Vista will load as it goes a long, letting you use that program ... etc.

Responses are welcomed~

of course that makes a lot sense, the 64bit version of xp was hardly anything anyone would fancy....poor drivers and lots of other problems.
finally, i would say, vista has something really compelling over xp.

#5 lol Considering pc hardware is much much cheaper than apple and you get more out of your buck i mean seriously ram is so dirt cheap that its not even funny. Exactly #57 good point!. And because of these awsome deals i decided to go as high as my motherboard memory slots allowed. Max it up!!. So the max my motherboard can go is up to 8 so i did just that i maxed out my mb. I don't have to worry about memory upgrades in a very very long time.

And i have swap or page file disabled. So the os is purely running off ram. So seriously there are plenty of silicon to go around. Oil in the other hand we need to do something before gas prices gets too insanely high.

I am just getting sick and tired of people treating ram like if it is precious which in reality is oil that we should use wisely. I am glad i went to vista 64 bit was worth it.

#5, Lol MS should use your exact quote in a Vista commercial....or Apple should. 8gig good times. Crucial should hire you!

Considering I spent a whopping $130 for that 8GB of RAM (Corsair XMS, no less), I don't really see the problem. No need to close existing programs, no swap delay between app switching and buttery smooveness in demanding games like STALKER.

As for OS X, I don't find it particularly responsive with less than 2GB of RAM, and frankly, I don't see a problem with that. We're running short on oil, not silicon. RAM is cheap.

Of course, if your e-peen stiffens over running programs with 1GB in XP, imagine your rigidity if you try that in Linux with a quarter of the RAM! L1nVx rU13z!!!!!1!!one!1 V1$Ta dR001z!1!1!!!eleventyone!!!

Or something...

I'm still obviously doing something wrong. I've had 64 bit vista ultimate over a year and am still always going back to XP. Vista's pretty and switcher has helped make it useable but it has always let me down soon after I restore it's hard drive image on my computer. I can clearly type a file name in it's search and it will not find it. Media Center hiccups running my TV tuner card. The file explorer background color cannot be changed. My HP 1000 laserjet printer will not have 64 bit drivers. I used nlite to get rid of programs I will never use which caused the service pack 1 install to lockup. There's a long list of 32 bit software that will not work and vmplayer started locking up. The bootup time is way too long. My 8800gtx drivers have fewer options than XP, no more portrait mode on this monitor. 64 bit vista was not worth the troubles to me putting back on then taking it back off.

It is suspect these claims that "vista is wonderful, vista is great" following "vista is wonderful, vista is great" following another "vista is wonderful, vista is great" come in waves until it's tried again. I hoped for better. It's still pretty.

I've had a few issues with Vista x64 (i have never used the 32bit version).

- After installing Google Earth, IE32 would crash immediately. IE64 worked just fine though.

- Firefox 3.01 has crashed randomly on me and it works just fine on my home computer.

- Outlook 2007 has crashed a few times as me as well.

All in all I had less stability issues with xp.

I too have 8gb of ram with vista 64 and it sure does runs like a dream =). And its about time too. If you still on 32bit stick with xp. But if you going to 64 bit. Then go to vista. Don't bother with vista 32 in fact vista 32 should be cheaper and be on the lower end

Recently ordered a 64-bit DVD for my Business edition from Microsoft for only $10. I'm loving x64 so far. Can't wait to add another 2GB of RAM to my current setup.

is this true or just more talk, MS has rarely mentioned anything but glowing results for Vista including that stupid Mojave marketing trick............. I read down below that OEM's are starting to dump memory into computers at levels that would require Vista.

while I love the idea of even the OEM's finally selling computers with more than enough ram instead of being cheap bastards about it I'm still not sure that Vista is particularily wonderful or compelling.

oh well if it's to be Vista with no valid alternative I guess that's it then.

There is alot of panda killing occuring in this thread.

The only reason they're being picked up so fast is because OEM manufacturers and starting to release computers with 4 GB to 6 GB of memory. Far overkill for the general user but if the price doesn't change what's the harm. Naturally with the higher RAM in the computer it requires that there be a 64 Bit OS to support the above 3 GB threshold.

So Vista 64 being picked up? No. Vista 64 being forced on consumers? Yes.

Have had 64-bit servers (exclusively) for a year now.

Don't run it on the desktop, I don't do anything bringing peak memory past 3 let alone 4. I'll get there, but no rush.

well this is a pretty simple explanation. RAM has gotten very cheap, and if you want to take advantage of that, you need a 64 bit OS. if you want to run windows, there aren't many options out there. xp-64 is a pretty big pain in the butt if you like for your devices to work well.

Vista x64 here, happy as a clam.

I didn't know they required x64 drivers as a part of WHQL, I thought it was all peripheral manufacturers growing a brain.. In this case I must give kudos to Microsoft for really driving x64 for the desktop.

I'd go back to 64bit Vista... if Nortel made a Contivity VPN client that worked on it :(

I have Vista HP 64 and I love it. It is faster on the same computer than XP32 and the drivers and such are much better. I guess I am in the minority, but it has been nothing but great for me so far!

64-bit OS here too, though Ubuntu rather than Vista, it works really well! I guess I don't really need it as I only have 1GB RAM but it's free so why not! Plus I can play around with programming for both 64-bit and 32-bit on the same machine.

Memory is exactly the reason I put a 64 bit OS on the rig I built for my parents. I went with 4 gigs, and my brother is already looking at upgrading (why??)