Thank you Kryo that is very clear.

 

Now I am pissed mad. I just bought a new laptop 3 weeks ago and if I had known I would of looked for 64 bits LOL

 

My core 2 duo in in my specs says 32 bits...  DANG IT!!

 

Edit Spelling error

 

Are you sure about your "native 64-bit versions" ?

 

To my knowledge, AMD have no native 64 bits processor and Intel have only the Itanium who is native 64 bits processor... What is called AMD64 and EM64T don't mean native 64-bit but mean that the processor have a 64 bits memory address... and same this is not fully true... by example, the AMD Athlon X2 has a 40 bit address bus and recognize only 48 bit of the 64 bit virtual address... the newer barcelona X4, has a 48 bit address bus and 48 bit of the 64 bit virtual address...

 

When related to Intel, native 64 bits is called IA-64... native 32 bit is called IA-32... EM64T ( x86-64 or IA-32e ) is native 32 ( core is 32 bit ) but have 64bits memory address range and register are 64 bit... the SSE core of any processor is already 128 bits... and the FPU ( x87 ) is 80 bit wide... now, these SSE core and mainly the register have some difference when used in IA32 mode and x86-64 mode... IA32 can only use 8 register of 128 bits... x86-64 mode can use 16 register of 128 bits...

 

About OS, from miscrosoft, only win server 2003 and win server 2008 have a native 64 bits version... Vista have only a x86-64 version, who is a native 32 bits....

 

My point is that your "native 64 bits" is in reality IA-32e... a 32 bit processor with expension... real native 64 bit is called IA-64 ( like the itanium processor )...

 

Now, why use the x86-64 ? Some people with only 4 gb Ram use a x86-64 system for access these full 4 gb ram, in place of a x86-32 system who find around 3.1 GB ram from the 4 GB ram ( since some address range is reserved for the material )... Is it good ? Not really in these case... the same software, compiled for x86-64 take more space in memory due to  swollen pointers and aligment padding... And this increase of the memory requirement have implication for processor cache utilization...

 

In the case of a system like my own system, with two Xeon quad-core ( huge cache ) and with 16 gb Ram, x86-64 is interesting... but with a x86-64 processor with only 4 GB, it is a not interesting; more bad, it can happen that a application running in 32 bits cannot run when compiled in 64 bits because of a shortage of memory...

 

In place of support the x86-64, i think that Stardock will make a better move to support multicore and/or multiprocessor... a lot of people have multicore processor but not so much people have more that 4 gb ram

C2D is 64-bit hardware.  Most hardware at this point in time is 64-bit (with 32-bit backwards compatibility-with the exception of the Intel Itanium architecture).  The problem remains that most Windows are still 32-bit...both XP and Vista.

As an additional note, the original Core Duo was a 32-bit processor, not 64-bit.

@Thoumsin

While your post is informative, it is entirely too much for the average user.  (Note: I'm not an average user.)

The simple fact of the matter is that you can't run a 64-bit OS or software on an x86 (32-bit) processor, while you can on an x86-64 (64-bit, whether it's native 32 or not).  There's nothing inherently bad about IA64, but people weren't ready to jump to 64-bit and not being backwards compatible was a problem.  Additionally, the Itanium is/was primarily server-targeted.

The memory addressing limitations are not irrelevant, but even 40-bit addressing is able to handle a terabyte of RAM, which is far more than any consumer system can fit or use at present, and although I'm not as familiar with server specifications as I once was, I don't believe most servers would have an issue with it, either.  With regards to 48-bit memory addressing, the limit here of 256TB should be enough for just about anyone.

 

Hmmmm... Let take the example of Windows XP pro ( the usual version ( 32 bit ), not the x64 )...

 

Yes, with standart installation, you have access to only 4 GB address range... where you can use between 3 and 3.5 gb due to the address range needed for your material ( by example, i have a Nvidia 8800 ultra with 768 mb... this remove 768 mb from the 4 GB address range )...

 

Second problem, any process can only use 2 GB ram at maximum... standart installation use 2 GB for application and 2 GB for kernel...

 

So, it seem that Krya is right.... BUT ...

 

You can modify your boot.ini and have a better result...

By example, you can add the /PAE flag in your boot.ini... Windows XP remain a 32 bits system but the PAE allow 36 bit memory range... good for 64 GB of physical memory... the PAE is a good option for people with older processor, who are not a x86-64, since the PAE is supported from the old Pentium Pro...

A other example, you can add the /3g flag to your boot.ini... this allow application to use a maximum of 3 GB ram in place of 2 GB ram... 50% more place... beware, the /3g flag reduce your kernel space from 2 gb to 1 gb... no a big problem for usual people but these who run a host server or mail server, etc... can run out of memory for the kernel... mean a blue screen !!!

 

Now, there is a catch... windows XP and windows vista desktop version can only use 4 gb... so, with the PAE, you have the full 4 gb ram to use, address for material are using the address over the 4 gb range... windows 2000 advanced server can use 8 gb, the extended version 32 gb... windows server 2003 entreprise SP1 can use 64 gb... for info, windows XP SP2 use the PAE by default if your processor have the NX feature ( no-execute )...

 

So, for the people with IA32 bit processor, you can tune your windows XP 32 bits and be allow to use more memory... but this solution is only valid if you have 4 gb RAM... over 4 GB ram and below 64 gb, you need a 32 bit server edition of windows... over 64 gb ram and below 16 exabytes of ram, you need a 64 bit windows edition...

 

Of course, you can use other 32 bits operating system... MAC OS X 10.5 have a 32 bit kernel but support 32 GB ram... Linux 32 bit from the kernel 2.6 support PAE with a maximum of 64 GB ram...

Welcome to the club.

I knew I should went into computing instead of customer service.

hehe

 

So I have 64 bit hardware but Windows does not have any 64 bit os for the main public on vista. How nice.

Vista has 64-bit versions, but 32-bit is still the default for some ungodly reason.  In addition, I'm fairly positive Home Basic is 32-bit only, although I have no idea if that's relevant, as most default installs tend to be Home Premium.

I believe Microsoft has a system in place for one to upgrade or "exchange" one's Vista for an alternate version (for instance 32-bit Home Premium to 64-bit Home Premium), but I have no idea exactly how it works or if it's free or simply discounted, or anything really.  I'm actually not even sure if an exchange is doable or if it has to be an actual upgrade (like to Ultimate).

If you're positive that you have a C2D under the hood, then yes, your hardware is 64-bit.  If you've looked at the specs, that's good enough for me.  As it's new, it should be, but there are still some "new" CD systems floating around (as a note, this isn't a concern for desktops as the original Core Duo was in laptops only).

I wouldn't sweat it too much right now Solam. Since most users are still on 32-bit, most software is also made for 32-bit, so it couldn't take advantage of the extra memory availability (if you have that much in your machine) on a 64-bit OS anyway. But it's definitely something to keep in mind for the future. Hopefully Microsoft drops 32-bit with Windows 7 so we can actually make some progress.

 

Hope that my second post, just up these.... is more interesting for the average user... it will allow people with non x86-64 processor ( but over the pentium pro ) to use a maximum of 4 GB ram ( without loose due to the material address range ) and allow a application to use 50% more memory...

 

My point from all my post are that people have good machine, good OS but don't know how to tune it from reach top performance... real gamers will know how to tune a OS for reach a max of performance....

 

About the "server targeted" thing... i use for gaming a dual Xeon 4 core with 16 gb ram... yep, it is a server computer... and it give me a very good result for game... Sins run very good on it... before, i was using XP pro 64 bit but these was crashing once the game was using more of 5 gb ram... now, i use Linux and some game have reach over 6 gb ram without problem... Open-solaris work almost good ( some problem with my 7.1+2HD sound system )...

 

And for information, i am a average user... who simply like to push his material to the limit... and Sins can be a real challange for any material... i have already use more of 5.3 gb ram for some sins game... the real problem is that the sins engine don't support multicore... and this problem create numerous slowdown in huge map with huge battle...

I'll be sure to note that when I buy a machine with 1 TB of RAM. Somehow, however, I doubt I'll be owning an AMD64 by then.

In reality, it's a 16 bit processor with 32 and 64 bit expansions . Last I checked, 16 bit OSes like DOS still work if you really want to do so. I'm pretty sure that old 640k limit and the bug that allowed you to bypass it is still lurking around somewhere in the older modes of operation.

Okay, so they're using a few transistors supporting older modes - but so what? AFAIK, it's not affecting the overall performance of the system. My Core 2 Quad zips around faster than anything else I've owned.

Yes, he's sure. Native 64 bit software doesn't require a "native" processor. The CPU just needs to support 64 bit, it doesn't need to drop older modes.

Actually, they do. It's called "alternate media" and it basically costs a little bit more than shipping and handling. If you can confirm you own the 32 bit version using the product key, you can get the 64 bit version.

Xeons are a server marketed Pentium/C2D (respective generations) processor, not an Itanium.  They are EMT64, not IA64.  As such, your point with regards to my point that Itaniums are/were server marketed is irrelevant; your processor(s) are not Itaniums.

Your second post is somewhat more helpful than your first, and somewhat easier for a non-techie to understand.  However, it's worth noting that if you are on a 32-bit OS, you are still limited to 4GB, minus your video card, and whatever your primary application (presumably you have some purpose in mind by setting the flag for 3GB) is going to be consuming the vast majority of that 3GB, if not all of it (read: late game immense GCII games, etc), which doesn't leave much for anything else.  Taking into account the above subtraction for video card VRAM, it becomes obvious that 4GB is simply insufficient.

@CobraA1

Thank you for that information regarding Vista-not because I need it personally, but because I didn't want to go digging for it.

Kryo's point is valid as well, Solam.

Additionally, because it bears repeating:

Kryo- last I heard Microsoft was going to release 32 and 64-bit flavors, even though originally they said it was going to be 64-bit only.  I would love it if it was 64-bit only, as it would finally encourage vendors to write 64-bit drivers and help speed adoption, although I get the impression there's a lot of 32-bit software that starts to run into issues with 64-bit OSes.  I guess we'll see, though, but I'm envisioning a dual release.

I also hope Windows 7 doesn't come in 50 flavors like Vista.  Too confusing without adding much value.

Indeed.

There are almost as many flavors of Linux as there are of Vista.

(That was a joke, people.)

Not really. Most issues ar elimited to system-level stuff--regular apps in general work just fine. The sticky point is driver support, but keeping 32-bit as the standard OS isn't going to help that; hardware manufacturers won't focus on 64-bit driver support until it's mainstream, and only MS and the OEMs can change that.

 

With the PAE, you have your full 4 GB... material like video card use the upper part of the 48 bits memory range... the physical limit of 4 Gb was only keep by windows XP... using Windows server 2000 allow already the use of more memory with PAE... And remember, the PAE is working from the Pentium pro... so people without processor EM64T can use more memory if they chooose the right OS... Windows XP and Vista are low end operating system, who don't use all the capabilities of your system... Server version, same used on a usual desktop computer, allow your to use more "power"... for the last Microsoft OS, windows server 2008... normal 32 bit version support 4gb... but the enterprise or datacenter edition ( 32 bit ) support 64 Gb !!!

 

Now, can someone explain me why server 2008 enterprise 32 bit support 64 gb ram and vista 32 bit support only 4 gb since both use the NT 6.0 SP1 kernel... very simple... all is about money... because vista is cheaper that server 2008, the NT 6.0 kernel have some function dissable... and it is not because a microsoft OS is called server that it run only on server...

 

True with Microsoft... but a linux kernel with PAE allow to use 64 gb... and allow the application to use 64 gb too ( almost, remove material and kernel space from these 64 gb )... why do you think that i use Linux for Sins... With Windows XP pro x64, i have only know problem of stability when the game use over of 5 gb ram ( don't ask me why, i have not yet find why )... but with Linux, it run perfectly, using the memory it is needed...

 

Of course, for usual user, Linux is not a option... PAE kernel is not installed by default... only beta driver of Nvidia work good in PAE mode, mean that you need source of kernel for compile a module... wine register need to be edited manually...

 

Solution exist for windows with 32 bit processor...

- Pentium pro or newer but not EM64T , with 4 GB : XP 32 bit with PAE and 3G allow your to use your full 4 gb for system/application and 3 gb for application in place of 2 GB

- Pentium pro or newer but not EMT64T, with more of 4 GB : windows server 2000 advanced allow to use 8 gb, extended allow to use 32 gb, server 2003 enterprise allow to use 32 gb, with SP1... 64 gb, server 2008 enterprise allow to use 64 gb...

 

Now, is there somebody here with more that 64 gb Ram ( Devs of sins are excluded because it is possible that they have top of the top computer ) ? Windows 32 bit OS can use more that 4 gb when you choose the right version... people with a old P3 can go over the 4 gb limit if they have the right windows OS but they will never be able to use a EM64T software...

 

To be honest, the 64 bits memory address range is not yet ready for easy use... for devs, we have a new set of intruction for it... but instruction are not always the same for EM64T and AMD64... common instruction don't allow to win a lot of speed... only good solution is to make two source code... one for EM64T and one for AMD64... double work for same income... game are sell around 50$, this don't allow a lot of money for devellopment ( sins and stardock are maybe the only one exception, so much work for free upgrade version... work where they ear no money... but they earn my respect... )...

 

Sins can run from the very old computer to the top one... of course, for the old computer, you need to lower the quality, you cannot use huge map with several star... but sins have reach a huge number of user in very short time... making the new stardock game 64 bits can be good for us, people who have a confortable life and some money... money for buy modern system of pay server version of Microsoft OS... but what about the million of poor people who have buy sins because it run ( same in limited way ) on their old limited hardware... in my linux world, sins is the top one game in his genre... it can run on a old P3 from a guy who is from poor African country, using the free to ship ubuntu OS because the guy have no internet connection or/and no money...

 

And it is not very different in my country... the modern Belgium... for hobby, i set up old computer for people who know nothing about it... my material come from recycle place... old P4 at 1.2 Mgh, AMD at 1.8 from the generation of 8 year ago... and for these people, i am able to put a demo of sins... of course, after some time, they are limited in the game because of the resource hardware... but the few who like sins are ready to buy a more modern computer for enjoy the sins at his full power ( and it allow me to earn more money since i build and configure the new system )...

 

Like say before, stardock game are great, sins is great since it work on any hardware... memory can be a problem but it is not the main problem... multicore use is a main problem... processor have a lower work frequency but have a lot of core... sins is not able to use them in a perfect way ( same the 2.6 linux kernel don't rsolve all problem, around 30% of power are lose in waiting time )... of course, a multicore engine will be more difficult that a x-64 software... a multicore engine need to review all the code, a x-64 version need only a new compilation of the source code ( and some other minor change )...

 

Arrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh.....

 

From a devs point of view, this sentence make me crazy... EM64T and AMD64 are 32 bits with 64 bits memory access.... AI-64 ( Itanium ) is native 64 bit ( add ultrasparc and some other processor to the list )... the first 64 bits processor was created before i was born ( and i am more of 40 year old !!! ) but usual people are not ready for it... EMt64T and AMD64 are hydrid system... a 32 bit system where a little section work with 64 bits... like PAE is a 32 bits system with 48 part... a EM64T or AMD64 CANNOT excecute 64 bits code but can use 64 bit memory range...

 

At least, for Sole Soul... about my own Xeon processor... yes, they are not real 64 bit processor... they are 32 bits with Em64T expension.... like any modern P4... but there is some other difference... memory access is serial, quad interleace... with ECC 8 bits ( in my case )... memory raid possibility... etc.... P4 are low end Xeon where several function are dissabled... ok, i will not go further... but the Xeon is a full processor and the P4 is a processor where the "balls" was cut... they are similar but one have full power  and the last is a eunuch... the difference is similar to windows server 2008 and vista !!!!

 

At least, for Kryo... MS will never change something... sorry, correct me, MS have already change something... but like anything, you need to pay the price... from 2000, MS support 32 gb ram but only for professional operating system, where you pay a lot of money... usual people will always have eunuch system... where NORMAL function are cut... until you pay the big money...and it is not only about OS... BIOS are very important too... in my own bios, i have a function who allow almost 50% more fast result for 3D graphic... but with windows XP pro x-64 and Vista, the result is a blue screen... Unix and Linux are good with it but the manual configuration is a hell.... Yep; like you say, OS are the problem.... on one side, the easy windows but very limited... on the other side Unix/Linux who are the top but a pain in the A$$...

 

But for one thing, you are wrong.... MS and OEM cannot change it... Game is the mainstream... YOU can change it... In the case of sins, the 4x game, you are at the top in any operating system... you have more influence that you think... i am a open source guy... but for me, you are heroes... you are the perfect example that closed source is compatible with freedom... yep, real linux geek understand that FREE is not about "gratis" thing but about "freedom"... i have   top end hardware but i am happy for my "brother" who are able to run your software on low end system... i am happy that i can use sins without need to insert the original CD each 5 minutes ( if it was the case, a crack will exist from long time ago )... your first bad move was the impulse engine ( who don't work with linux )... i need to wait the european realease of the next few upgrade... sure that i will download "pirate" version since i don't like to wait but later, i will buy the boxed version ( these are with garanty )...

 

Kill me if you wish but my first version of sins was a pirate version... but once the european version was in store ( FNAC ), i have buy it.... because the game is great and because you are open minded... a little like NWN ( Never Winter Night )... i have buy the original and expension pack... but NWN2 was a no go... they fuçk us, it was not more compatible... for now, peoples of Starock, you are the best one for us... i know, Linux people are only 16% of the user now... but we are growing... and rach month, i convert some windows people... your Sins is a reference for us... You cannot imagine how much people like you game... and how much it is easy for us to run it on a linux 32 bits on old system ( font and sound problem resolved, a few tuning of wine register )...

 

It is not possible for the actual version, too much work for very little income... yep, the devs need to eat too... but if one day, sins 2.0 come out, please, try the open open GL way... it wil make it more easy for us... Return to Castle Wolfenstien have make it, quake have make it, unreal have make it.... you can make it because you are the best... not now... but tomorrow...

 

PS : Don't worry about my rant... i am happy with you now.... i simply fear the future... but for now, you concurrent on Linux is Vega Strike... and you are several light year before them... For me, only one is better that you ( but it is my own opinion )... Dannan from the 7DS project... it is a shame that he work for free ( gratis )... this guy is a genius ( with the help of his team )...