I assumed since I had Vista and a 64-bit Processor my OS was 64-bit. Am I not correct in assuming this?
Sadly not. There's 32-bit and 64-bit versions of operating systems.
Sadly.... I have the 32-bit version of Vista and my machine has a 64-bit processor. Needless to say this does not make me happy.
Most people don't need a 64-bit OS.
There's two advantages to having one: If you have 4GB of RAM or more, you can use all of it (there's complicated reasons for exactly why this is, I'll just leave it at 32-bit can only "see" 4GB in total, and that has to include the RAM in your graphics card, so if you have 4GB RAM + 256MB graphics RAM, you only get 3.75GB main RAM visible in a 32-bit OS, you'd see
all of it under 64-bit)
There's potential minor speed increases of up to about 15% for 64-bit applications due to being able to guarantee a 64-bit CPU has SSE and a number of other instruction extensions, as well as it having more registers on the CPU itself, so there's less waiting around for RAM to respond. These are as I say theoretical and depend entirely on the program being run taking advantage of them. SSE for example is only useful in math-heavy situations and completely useless when manipulating text.
But other than that there's not a huge amount of point. And that's why there's not been a mass move over to 64-bit. At least not in Windows. The open source world has generally gone there.
It's all a bit irrelevant to your problem though: I've run Audiosurf on 32-bit XP and Vista along with 64-bit Vista and Windows 7, so it runs fine on both Windows configurations.
Audiosurf