Why, i have XP x64 and have 16 gb ram without any problem...

In fact, having Windows 7 64-bit... the Starter, Home basic and Home premium edition ( the more used ) will make you running into a other limit, the 1 processor limit ( same if the license ( legal text ) say that it is good for two processor ).

In fact, system from 10 year ago, using windows 2000 32 bits datacenter edition was able to use a max 32 gb ram...

Will move to a new Windows version when these new version is a OS upgrade and not a OS downgrade... At the GUI and visual level, i agree that version after XP are a upgrade but a beautiful screen is not the main function of a OS...

By the way, half of the world continue to use XP, not everybody is ready to pay 319 euro for having a functional Win7 version... specially when these 2 gigabyte limit is a artificial one... Since the pentium pro in 1995, all 32 bit processor are in fact 36 bits processor who allow to access 16tb ram...

Since you are a dev, you certainly know about PAE... was a option in the original release of xp, removed with the service pack 1, reintroduce with the service pack 2 and auto enable if the NX bit is enable in the bios...

For any real dev or curious people wishing to know, take a look at http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm ... these page explain a lot and show how to make a normal 32 bits Vista edition to use 8 gb ram...

These 2 gigabyte limit is a virtual one, one created by Microsoft... and i am ashamed that a real dev use these escuse for push computer uneducated people to spend money on a new OS when in fact, it is not a real need... hey, the old Photoshop CS2 32 bits have a 3gb limit... why is there different limit for different devs !!!

Any Joe user need to realize that marketing lies exist in the computer world... by example, actual 64 bits processor support only 2^48 bytes of ram ( 48 bits address range )... that your new 1TB harddrive is in fact a 0.901 TB harddrive because marketing have decide that 1kb was not more 1024 bytes ( real binary ) but 1000 bytes ( marketing number )...

Well, there is a lot to write about OS and technologie... thing who are hidden to customer Joe... sure that customer Joe will continue to believe lie, be happy to empty his wallet for the pleasure of computer/software business...

As was mentioned before, first there needs to be stuff available that people want to upgrade for. Upgrading for "maybe possibly something 64-bit native in one possible future" doesn't really cut it Make 64-bit Elemental, show that it can play much better than the 32-bit, and people will want to upgrade.

Do any Stardock games have trrue 64-bit support? 

Good point - but it is the chicken and egg dilemma.  Software writers are not going to market 64 bit applications until they can pay for themselves, while users see no need to move to 64 bit since everything is still 32 bit (general statements subject to exceptions).  But as more and more applications (especially MS bloatware) bump into the memory limit, people are going to move just for the performance issue and that will create the market for the software writers.

As Thoumsin indicated, Windows 64 bit has been around for almost 10 years.  However, Microsoft did not get it good until 7.  I would bet that they are selling more 64bit versions of 7 than 32bit.  I know I will not buy a 32bit version for a new computer - since I expect to have it at least 5 years, and memory requirements by then are going to bust the 32bit limit.

There's nothing inherently wrong with Vista 64, just the same stuff that's "wrong" with Vista in general. I've been using it for a long time and have never had a problem related to having a 64-bit version. It's XP's 64-bit version that's been the ugly duckling. 

In any case, it is the content makers that have to nudge the market along. Nvidia/ATI can keep coming out with newer and fancier GPUs all they want, I'm still not going to upgrade as long as my GTX 285 can run anything I want to play well enough to satisfy me. The same largely applies to games as well. As long as there aren't any 64-bit native games, gamers who are perfectly satisfied with their 32-bit OS have absolutely no reason to upgrade for the sake of upgrading just because there's a possibility that somewhere down the line something might actually use all that memory. For the average consumer, it makes much more sense to get 64-bit when they need it, especially since an OS isn't that much of a long-term investment with a new version of Windows every several years.

This of course doesn't apply to folks buying Windows 7 because they like Windows 7, or people buying their first PC - in both of those cases, it makes sense to buy the 64-bit since they're the same price and you can only gain. But for the people who have Vista 32 and are happy with it, asking them to go and buy Win7 64 is rather silly when there's no real reason for them to (if they don't care to upgrade for the sake of Win7 itself).

i agree, since when does the 32bit version of 7 only support a 2gb limit. I run 3Gb RAM plus a 512Mb video card (which windows includes in the total memory count) and ALL of my RAM is available for use as well as the full 512Mb on the Video card. When stardock start supporting and releasing native 64bit versions of their software as well as other companies getting on the same boat then i might consider upgrading to a 64bit version of windows. Until then i have too much software that can only be used on a 32bit system that i need to have available for use. It's easy to say PLEASE UPGRADE TO 64 BIT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, but if this company is not going to make 64bit only versions whats the point. So no, i don't think i will be upgrading anytime soon thanks.

If you're not developing for Ubuntu Linux 64 bit, please do so soon.

This has been a Public Service Announcement.

<G> - Jonnan

I'd guess that's about as likely as my blender becoming self aware.

Nah, I'm sticking to Vista.
W7 sucks donkey balls on my system. I get better performance with Vista. (Explain that, please!!)

Intel Core2 Quad (Q9300, 2.5 GHz), 8 GB DDR RAM, ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2 w/ 2GB DDR.

Vista (Home 64) Experience Score: 5,2

WILL IT BLEND?!?!?!

Sounds like my Sister-inlaw on Margarita night. 

*grin*

Sorry, I don't mean to annoy people on your forum anymore :)  I just find linux requests wierd.

Oh, I was just heckling from the peanut gallery - <G>.

Don't get me wrong - I would *love* to be able to add a repository for stardock into Ubuntu's packaging system, pay for a software key, and run from there. Apt-get is *the* thing that makes Ubuntu/Debian something I categorically refuse to go back to Windows for more than playing games on - having a system in which every piece of software is categorically up to date, where security holes in anything are patched before I get home.

Unfortunately I don't see it as a system that can be ported to Windows; too much historical stuff in the Windows interface renders it difficult to impossible (IMO). Given the fundamental parity in other aspects, Windows can't compete with apt-get/dkpg, at least for someone like me where the security and updating is a priority.

But until that becomes popular, Linux isn't going to become a gaming platform, and sadly so long as it is so limited in games it's going to limit the popularity.

Maybe GC III then?

<G> - Jonnan

I haven't seen people grin that way in a long time, you must be a MUD user or sometin

I switched to 64 bit when I upgraded to Win 7.  I have only had problems with OLD programs and games not working.

I am striving for the future, not hanging on to the past!

I already had this 64 bit quad core computer (although it only has 3 GB of RAM, so I don't NEED a 64 bit OS)

I figured if I was gonna change the OS anyway, I might as well go 64 bit as well.

This new fangled 'emoticon' thing is a fad and will never catch on.

If anyone needs me I'll be busy twiddling i-nodes with speaker magnets- <G>.

Jonnan

I am sure that eventually when everyone changes their system, they will probably change. I have an Intel i7 dual quad core with 8 GB memory. While the x64 bit does have it's advantages it also has it's disadvantages. I also am able to run x86 programs and there are many that just aren't compatible yet for x64. For example. the 2 versions of Photoshop Extended CS4 or 5. Each one having it's own advantages. "Please Change ..." maybe but don't forget 32 bit until there are apps that run 64 bit. That's just from a customer point of view. I don't regret at all having switched, evrn the contrary. I am quite pleased.

I sincerely doubt 64 bit computing will take off for gaming for another two years at least.  40% of current gamers according to Steam.  60% are DX10 capable...and tons of games are still coming out without DX10 support.

I really don't expect 64 bit computing to get more than odds and ends before 2012...at which time I'm hoping (though not expecting) Win8 will be 64 bit only.  Good to see Stardock taking the initiative on it, but it sure doesn't seem like anyone else is.

uhhhhhhhh, because you're Frosty and only things like that happen to you? just a thought ...........

Um, no.  Next.

i get my new computer Monday win 7 pro, 8gb of ram to. been using a imac on bootcamp running xp since my other computer stopped being great 4 years ago. anyone want an ati radeon x800x ?

i been using xp 64bit when it was released, then vista 64, then win7 64... 32bit needs to go away already

Well, around 2001, they have try it with the IA-64 architecture ( itanium ) who is really the pure 64 bit evolution of the IA-32 ( other name are i386, x86-32, x86, etc )...

With IA-64, pure 64 bits code was very very fast... and emulated IA-32 code was slower that on native 32 bits computer...

Users Joe have refuse the IA-64 processor because 32 bit code was slower... so, x86-64 was created for please Joe user... x86-64 have the only advantage to run 32 bit code at a normal speed, 64 bit code is slower that on IA-64 architecture...

Consumer have make they choice... by refusing the IA-64 and choosing x86-64, they have choose for more poor performance in pure 64 bits but 100% compatibility/speed with 32 bits mode... the real 64 bit revolution was in 2001 but these was missed due to consumer choice... x86-32 and x86-64 are both based on x86 technology... something from the previous millenium... now, it will take years before anyone (dev and material ) take again the risk to make something pure 64 bits...

Maybe it will be better to first remove the 16 bits support before the 32 bits !!! Windows 7 ( 3 top version ) have always a 16 bit mode in the xp emulation thing !!!