Quote: Originally Posted by
KrossX 
It's interesting to see how everything is based on "how much RAM this and that". I've actually ran Vista x64 with 1GB RAM just for the heck of it, not trouble at all for common tasks (not games).
But for example, the benefit I get from 64 bit computing is not the ammount of RAM it can adress (if it has it to being with), but the ability to actually run my programs twice faster. I never thought it would be such a change to make my simple equation solver on 64 bit, it was actually twice faster for double and I loved the long long variables.
Nevertheless, knowing that actually the M$ OS are becoming more and more like an X-PC-Box gaming OS. It's logical to think just about the RAM and if the "x64" on the box would give you more FPS... or if you could put more stuff in SLI... kinda, depressing.
That's because most people don't to mathematics work on their PC's.
I hear that people who want response from gaming were going back to XP. But that could be before hardware became cheaper in order to more economically build systems to actually take advantage of Vista 64 maybe?
In the commercial sector, there are many people who use Windows as primarily a gaming computer. Although relatively, it's a minority (solitaire doesn't count
). So MS includes some technology for that but in reality, DX is a small part of Win OS anyway. X-Boxes were made to capture a part of the more casual gaming market in the "consumer electronics sector".
The real technology behind M$ OS is in the industrial sector. Interestingly, excluding servers, this is probably where CPU is the most underutilized. It doesn't tax the CPU much to run office applications / business software and several Internet Explorers. I bet that if you install
Folding at Home on all company PC's, we would cure cancer by the end of the year!
That's why RAM size is regarded the bigger benefit usually I believe.