we still are in the 64 bits era
not certain but intel has built last years some new manucfacturing plants and dont’ know what they will come up next with
64 or 128 bits and a lot smaller may be 10 Nm or less!
will be very interesting to see what the next generation will be !
and i’m still on Vista 32 bits
but dont’ do any animation or a lot of sculpting so dont’ really need a lot fo memory
happy blendering
“just out of curiosity, what version of Blender do you guys use”
I use 64bit
" and (most interesting why)? "
Because I don’t have access to the 384bits computers the “military” used in the eighties…
we still are in the 64 bits era
not certain but intel has built last years some new manucfacturing plants and dont’ know what they will come up next with
64 or 128 bits and a lot smaller may be 10 Nm or less!
Actually all of it has already been around. 64x was around long before it was consumerized, and 128 was around at about the same time too. If you wondering about what come after that, allow me to give the 15 year forecast… 512, 1024, 2048, 4096…
Think about quantum computers
modo and maya no longer support 32 bit
Think about quantum computers
AHHH! No, i cant. Its too big for thought 
You still didn’t pay serious attention on what I posted though.
I tested it under some computers and OSs
But anyway, I agree, 128 bits is better. and more, more, MORE
Well, I take the risk of OP posting we end this offtopic nonsense or whatever and quickly talk about it:
Entanglement of particles effect: Official version: Oh, look at this spooky effect at a distance (Einstein)
Real application version: You “entangle” two particles and then separate them and keep them caged in magnetic fields. Then you go with one to USA/The Moon/Mars/Andromeda Galaxy and the other particle remains here in BlenderArtists. Then you do something to one particle and what you do or not do is just a way to do “morse code” (binary). And the marvelous of the entanglement is that “at the exact same instant” one of the particles is affected, it reacts and the other reacts exactly the same, “at the same time”. So if one does one thing the other is doing exactly the same, that is why they are entangled, and that is the spooky effect at a distance that Einstein spoke of. This entanglement is known from the times of Einstein.
Now imagine you have a computer that has a device with this entangled particle “doing binary/morse code on it”. The other particle is in another device connected to another computer and would read what it sees in the entangled particle. You have two computers connected without using wires and noone can pick and spy on the data being transmitted because it doesn’t go “flying through space”.
Just one of the magic of quantum computers. You just know is posible to transmit info faster than Light speed (Carl Sagan was his whole life working as a disinfo agent with this Light speed nonsense, he knew perfectly what to tell and what to hold). There are many of these “strange things” “not being used” when obviously you can see the advantages of them!!!
Well, there is simply no point for 32-bit (unless you are using a very old computer of course)
This is interesting though: At which point do you think the foundation could stop distribute a 32-bit version and just focus on the 64-bit? If I am not mistaken, 64-bit versions of Windows (for example) has been around since XP (not sure though, at least Vista and later). At which point will there be so few that use it that it will be scrapped? 2 years? 5? 10?
Upgraded to a 64 bit Win7 machine last October, I am loving the fact that I’m not so restricted on scene detail now because of my 16 gigs of RAM.
Heck, there’s even indication from the commit logs that there’s been recent bugs that only affect 32 bit builds. If not for the fact that Microsoft still makes 32 bit versions of their OS’s, there would soon be almost no reason for 32 bit support to exist.
So if you look at things 5 years from now, we’ll be at the point where the majority of modern software will require 64 bit systems to be used to their fullest.
So that was what the maya long count was counting!!!
the problem with quantum computers , is if you think about them, they no longer exist, or exist somewhere else. 
I’m on 32bit at the moment, but will be on 64 bit soon… I can’t even upgrade my pc anymore 
so i need a new one
32 bit because I can get those for very cheap. But of course I have a couple 64 bit machines too. I have a classroom and use my computers for teaching.
I thought the 64 bit version of Windows XP wasn’t as developed as the versions for Vista and later, the concept was still fairly new at the time.
Onto the possibility of moving to even higher bit depths, I currently do not see any reason to have a 128 bit address space unless you were wanting to do something like an atomic-scale black hole simulation or you wanted to model the entire Earth down to the millimeter without detail culling. I don’t really see a move towards 128 bit architecture until someone creates a valid reason to have it on consumer hardware, because I don’t think you’ll even find it in the machines of the big production houses like ILM.
It wasn’t true 64, it emulated a 64 bit bus so it could acsses additional ram. Not without additional drawbacks mind you.
I’ve been on 64bit since December 26th 2011 - that’s when I bought my current desktop. I still have my 32bit 5yo laptop (Toshiba Satellite, for those of you wondering) right here next to me, been using it to test out different Linux distros.
As for my OS, I used Vista on the laptop (actually worked quite well) then Win7 on my desktop, but I switched over to Linux Mint 13 in November last year, haven’t gone back since. It actually started out as a test, but I like it so much that I’ve stuck with it 
32bit because WinXP. I haven’t run into any noticeable “memory ceilings” as of yet so there’s no point in using 64bit just because “it’s bigger”.
64 bit is not only wider memory address bus, but more important - new CPU instruction set and more CPU registers.
64-bit because I have 24GB of RAM and it would be silly not to use it.
Everyone clamoring for “the next big thing” i.e. 128-bit and beyond, forget about it. The 64-bit architecture was created to expand beyond the 4-6gb memory limits of the 32-bit architecture, and boy did they. 64-bit architecture can theoretically handle 16 exabytes of memory, the AMD64 standard has access to about 4 petabytes. We won’t be encroaching on that limit any time in the near future. More bits does not automatically make a faster computer. Having worked with 128-bit architectures before I can tell you that it’s a pain in the ass for the insignificant speed gains you see.
Okay! Yeah, I had a hunch there was something fishy with the XP-version
Anyway, it has at lest been around since Vista, which is over 6 years old now.