Yeah, everyone should upgrade so we can run all those cross-platform console titles better, right?

Yes.  So does XP x64, but that's poorly/unsupported by basically everyone.

I'm running Win 7 64 bit which I paid money for and I think I paid too much. It is miles ahead of XP, on the other hand it's still Windows with all it's cons. Perhaps I'll move permanently to linux next year, for now I need damned Windows to do stuff for school because they don't accept docs made in Open Office, I have to do everything in M$ Office.

Support linux please, don't focus on Windows only.

I have TWO computers with win 7 ULTIMATE 32 & 64 bit, several xp32 bit, one machine with vSHITa 32 & 64 bit AND xp 32 & 64 bit, the xp boxes are mostly special purpose, the shita is software compatability testing, and the win7's are my main gaming comps, and I have THREE machines with MORE than 4gb ram ie 2 at 8gb and one 12gb, but I usually use 32 bit for it's better legacy support with 4gb & less ram.

AND I have been one of the forum members asking for 64 bit games for the reason you want to move the customers to 64 bit, ie no longer having a fairly small amount of ram to work with and having to pick & choose what to use and how do we trim the FAT off of this object, BUT please try to NOT waste the large ram available in 64 bit

harpo

can't you just default open office to save in MS office format? - how would they tell then?

I could - Opene Office supports all MS Office documents but I take my comp and use it where they can see it and they sometimes explain options in MS Office which are in OO in another place, finding them could take me a while and that minute or two is important during a lesson because in the meantime we could start doing something else... So I'd better stick to MS Office for now.

Obviously I can't speak for Stardocks plans in the future, but I believe they've said more than once they're not going to do anything with Linux.

gosh, think that is asking a lot. I wonder how many people's computers have room for more than 2 gigs of memory. so, we're not only talking about upgrading the OS but upgrading the motherboard and purchasing more memory.

I have win7 64 bit with 12 gigs of memory and both anno1401 and civ5 will freeze at some point during the game if I have a map being played that is larger than standard size (single player mode).

I was going to say "hey wait a minute!!!" on the 2gb limit, but then realized you meant per application.

As for 64 bit, HEY!  can I wait to Christmas?  I just bought my wife a new laptop with 64bit on it (and 2 for the church which I am playing with now! )

my 32 bit windows 7 works well for me...many programs/games i use are either not compatible or have a hard time getting it to work on a 64 bit

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).