Been waiting for this "fix" since late summer when I bought a customized 64bit computer. Thinking of canceling my gold account too.

Falcon

Unless an official statement is released within the next few weeks, I too will be canceling. GameTap really needs to take a closer look at this issue and FIGURE OUT A WAY to resolve it...period.

For the last time, there is nothing Gametap can do currently besides switching who they use for this service. Im not even sure if there is another trustworthy name in this particular area that Gametap could use. For all we know, they might be putting pressure on the company to get a 64bit version working. Gametap has done all they can to recognize this problem and try to help community members out with alternative choices. The only thing I wish they would add to this level of support is a mail list specifically for 64 bit users. That way, as soon as any news comes out or 64bit compatibility they will be instantly notified.

Also, for those that want to blame someone for the lack of universally embracing the 64bit instruction set of the x86 architecture, blame Windows. Vista should have been a 64bit only OS. Or, at very least, all OEM versions should have been. And Windows 7 again will be both 64 bit and 32 bit. If they would just force 64bit like they did from 16 to 32, we wouldn't have this problem. At least the Windows 7 Server Edition will be 64 bit only, maybe cause of that everyone will make sure to have at least compatibility with 64 bit.

And I know EXACTLY whose service gametap can switch to, SecuROM! It works!

I just built an awesome new machine running 64-bit Vista. After reading the compatibility list I am canceling my account immediately as EVERY single game I play will no longer run (Sam and Max, Fallouts, Grimms, Alien Shooter Vengeance, etc). It's a real shame too because I was finally looking forward to playing some of these games at good frame rates.

Not supporting 64-bit OSes is a terrible idea, and is approaching ridiculous as the MINIMUM amount of RAM a modern machine should be running is 2gb and mainstream machines are quickly approaching the 32-bit OS RAM limit.

I'll come back when I can play Sam and Max and Grimm again.

I must say I'm very happy that some progress has been made. You can actually install the GT software and not have it immediately crash or not work. And there are a LOT more games that actually run on the 64bit version. Unfortunately this seems to be the case on a number of vendors when it comes to supporting 64 bit. I've run into a number of (even new) devices that won't run, or will run, if only you had a proper driver. Even when they say it's Vista optimized or whatever, they still only mean the 32 bit version.

It would be nice it GT could somehow get better data on how many users have 64bit platforms available to them. I know I've used Vista 64bit for well over a year now, but have dual booted XP 32bit all along, mostly to play GT and a few other games. Most everything works on Vista 64 except GT. I'm hopeful that they'll get there, because I find that I go back less and less to the XP side, and if it wasn't for GT it would be less than once / month.

But I think the only thing you can do is show the numbers and hopefully the tide will turn. GameTap is an awesome service -- hopefully I will be able to get full use out of it soon!

http://knowledgebase.nuance.com/view.asp?60VQ=JLJG

See their 64-bit assessment.

Geeze. Mmm. Just because you can find a half dozen applications that don't yet have 64-bit versions doesn't prove anything. In your mind is it okay for Gametap to ignore their 64-bit customers so long as there is a SINGLE company out there that doesn't have a 64-bit version yet? I have no idea why you even troll these threads and try your best to get them shut down.
For those who didn't bother clicking the OP's link, it's for ... of all things, Dragon Naturally Speaking. I'll go one further and add that Zone Alarm, last I checked, doesn't have a 64-bit version either (they pulled their beta for some reason). So I'm sure there are at least a handful of decently known software programs that are not yet 64-bit compatible, but it's a rediculous argument to claim the fact that a few other companies aren't doing their part, so it's okay that Gametap isn't either. Please don't reuse lists from two years ago again either to support your claim that oh so many applications don't work on 64-bits, because those of us who actually USE a 64-bit OS know that's nonsense.
There is also the point that there is a MUCH greater demand for games for people who have 64-bit new PCs than there is for voice to text software. No one has claimed that the business world is adopting 64-bit OS' as mainstream yet, which is where you would find the most demand for Dragon.

Besides citing Nuance, I was more pointing to their explanation of why it's not already done.

I find it more likely that Dragon, like gametap, do not completely control their Intellectual Properties either due to pieces of code they simply reuse, code they've outsourced, or otherwise procured from a third party provider. So to them it's far easier to simply sit and wait than it is to go around renegotiating contracts.
Open source software, freeware, and plenty of legacy applications have been able to update their code without it being profitable. I refuse to accept the, oh our software is so complex it's just to plum difficult because it's so complicated, argument. They don't have to have it actually take advantage of 64bits processing, it only has to run.
And as an other poster said, I do hope Windows 7 is 64-bit only ... but I doubt it will be since that would cut into a good deal of business profits. It would be nice if they made only a business edition that was 32bit/64bit (they would naturally charge extra), and left the rest at 64bit. Of course within a year or two they'll have dual processor motherboards for home consumers running two quad procs (intel announced a scaled down server board like last year). Heck a gig of video ram is common now. In a year or two 32-bit OS's would be maxed just from video memory alone. Three PCIX Sli/CrossfireX enabled MB's are becoming more and more commonplace. People are already starting to rig up 3-4 video cards at once. Then on top of that you have the dual cards in one, the X2's. When I first started posting about wanting gametap to have 64 bit OS support, I thought my PC was hot stuff (and had to run 64bits), now it's rapidly becoming dated.
Speaking of though, I do have 3xPCIX slots, but one defaults to 4x instead of 16x speed. Does anyone know if it would be worth it to pop a third video card it or will that just slow everything down? Would it be better to get 2 of the 4870hdX2s? Can two of the dual vid cards in one be hooked up together?
Cheers.

Some people are running tri-SLI on 680i motherboards which have 2 16x slots and a third slot that is physically 16x but electrically 8x. The 16x cards just down scale to run at 8x and people aren't noticing performance differences to tri-SLI rigs that are running all three cards at 16x.

Mixing a 4x card with two 16x cards might not provide you the needed bandwidth. You can crossfire two X2 cards though just fine. This is considered Quad-Crossfire.

> {quote:title=Krentz wrote:}{quote}
> Not supporting 64-bit OSes is a terrible idea, and is approaching ridiculous as the MINIMUM amount of RAM a modern machine should be running is 2gb and mainstream machines are quickly approaching the 32-bit OS RAM limit.
>
Yes, the 32-bit OS RAM limit of 4GB...
If you are playing a game that uses even 2GB of RAM, the game has a memory leak. There is currently no need for the massive amount of RAM supported by 64-bit, and I'm pretty sure most software doesn't or can't take advantage of it.

Nothing should go 64-bit only unless they can include a viable 32-bit emulator inside of it.

Thanks Scorp. I wasn't sure how the x2's handled that. That's definitely going to be my next upgrade to quad video cards.

As to the OP: games can and should take advantage of over 2 gb's of Ram. Memory leaks are common. Vista scales its ram footprint depending on how much memory you have available. The more that can be loaded into active memory the better. This is especially true with large zones in a game when you don't want to have load times. The more memory that is available, the more expansive a game can be, the more detailed the preloaded textures can be, etc. Quite a few games state 2-3gb memory recommended now. And ... no one is suggesting games should ONLY be 64 bit yet, although a few are. Eventually they won't make 32 bit versions at all, but that's not soon. I haven't heard anyone requesting that gametap even be optimized to run on a 64bit OS, only that it runs. Generally speaking you can write a piece of code, click compile->32bit executable or compile->64bit executable. End of story. It's not like they have to write two different versions of a game. It's closer to writing a paragraph and using babelfish. At least as I understand it. Also, please take into account the fact that when there is a ~3gb memory limit that's not just system ram, that is also video ram. So 2gb system memory 1gb vram and you're stuck.

> {quote:title=Cartigan wrote:}{quote}
> Yes, the 32-bit OS RAM limit of 4GB...
> If you are playing a game that uses even 2GB of RAM, the game has a memory leak. There is currently no need for the massive amount of RAM supported by 64-bit, and I'm pretty sure most software doesn't or can't take advantage of it.
>
> Nothing should go 64-bit only unless they can include a viable 32-bit emulator inside of it.

It's true that 4GB of RAM should be enough to run pretty much anything on your computer but the 32-bit limit is too low with all of the hardware you can put in a machine. I have a custom build Quad-core machine, with SLI'd 512MB video card, a 3rd 256MB card to allow multiple monitors, TV tuner, etc. When I was using Vista 32-bit it would report that I only had 2.25GB of physical memory. You can rag on Vista all you want but my normal computer usage brought the total memory usage to around 1.8GB. Having under 512MB of buffer to run games wasn't very comforting.

As soon as I reinstalled with Vista 64-bit I could see the full 4GB of RAM as use able and I ran into an issue where an extremely old flat bed scanner didn't have a driver. Other than that everything has been working great other than Gametap.

I can't believe between this thread and the other one what I was reading. Come on people they said its a 3rd party problem so what are they suppose to do, rewrite Gametap? Its a hassle, I know, I have both Vista 64 and XP on my new system so I could check compatibility and now I'm going to keep the XP for now so I can play Gametap games. I know a lot of people only have one or the other I was lucky to have XP disks that I bought for my old computer (that I wiped) and used those. Give the people at Gametap a break, its not in their hands, when the 3rd party company makes the 64bit device driver then they'll work it into the Gametap program. Until then just read this forum for further notice and stop the name calling, its not going to help anything.

> {quote:title=dislexic wrote:}{quote}
> Generally speaking you can write a piece of code, click compile->32bit executable or compile->64bit executable. End of story.

Somebody's never written a Makefile.

Err. It would be the same thing. Use the -m32 command for the makefile once, then use the -m64.

> {quote:title=dislexic wrote:}{quote}
> Err. It would be the same thing. Use the -m32 command for the makefile once, then use the -m64.

Google won't help you. 64bit compilation requires linking to the right libraries, not just clicking the compile button. It may also require setting the creation of data type restrictions or other need to know information at compile time. Since you are clearly an expert, try getting a 64bit perl going. Look at the flags.

Oh right, Exent must've just forgot to click compile 'generally speaking' on a 64bit box.

> {quote:title=mmmyeahright wrote:}{quote}
> Google won't help you. 64bit compilation requires linking to the right libraries, not just clicking the compile button. It may also require setting the creation of data type restrictions or other need to know information at compile time. Since you are clearly an expert, try getting a 64bit perl going. Look at the flags.
>
> Oh right, Exent must've just forgot to click compile 'generally speaking' on a 64bit box.


While creating the 64-bit driver might not be as simple as changing the target from 32-bit to 64-bit, Vista x64 has been in RTM for 2 years on Nov 8th. This doesn't include the months of beta and release candidates which Microsoft releases to allow companies to ensure that their products will function correctly once the new OS comes out.

I'll give Exent some leeway with the x64 port since when it first came out very few people used it and then it was mainly power users. However, it is now mainstream. I really hope MIcrosoft makes Windows 7 64-bit only in retail channels while allowing a possible 32-bit version for business use only. This will help clear the air as XP has been out for 7 years and some of the machines people are trying to run Vista on are four or more years old and extremely under powered. By requiring 64-bit support many of the legacy systems can be finally put out to pasture.

The reason all of us are complaining about 64-bit support even though it's Exent's issue and not Gametap's, is that it is Gametap's issue. I'm not sure about all of their customers but Gametap and Metaboli should be two of their larger customers. They should both be demanding an update as these posts show that it is in fact costing them subscriptions.

It's true that 64bit windows is selling and growing quicker than the 32bit version, according to Microsoft.

I've always been interested in Gametap. But I did cancel my subscription after URU disappeared because, without 64bit support, there was no other reason to stay on. Once Gametap is able to handle 64bit, I'll return.

> {quote:title=SScorpio00 wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=mmmyeahright wrote:}{quote}
> I'll give Exent some leeway with the x64 port since when it first came out very few people used it and then it was mainly power users. However, it is now mainstream.



A whopping 3.5%. About the same as . Putting crap on the shelf doesn't make it mainstream.

> {quote:title=vincent_y79 wrote:}{quote}
> 3.5% makes about 50,000 players according to the steam survey. Still plenty of potential players to alienate.

+Potential+, but not enough for it to have been done already, apparently.

> {quote:title=mmmyeahright wrote:}{quote}
>
>
> A whopping 3.5%. About the same as . Putting crap on the shelf doesn't make it mainstream.


The Steam survey also says 1.7 million people replied to it if you add up the operating system numbers. Considering Steam is a global service and Gametap is US/Canada based this really skews numbers. The survey also says that 80% of users use XP and the majority have single core processors.

While I can't say for certain the majority of Vista PCs are dual core. Also the Steam survey says that 15% of the people use Vista x32 while 3.5% use Vista x64. Lets say that about 15% of all Vista copies are 64-bit. This is actually lower than the 20% Steam is pointing towards.

Here's an article stating from Microsoft that over 140 million copies of Vista have been sold as of May 2008. With 15% of Vista copies being 64-bit, that means there are 21 million copies of Vista x64. That doesn't seems non-mainstream to me.

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/08/140-million-copies-of-vista-sold-how-does-leopard-compare/

Also considering that you can go to Walmart.com right now and order a computer for $600 /w Vista x64, it doesn't sound that outlandish that more people are purchasing Vista x64.

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10669570

Finally, yes I concede that XP which has been out for 7 years has sold vastly more copies that both Vista 32 and 64. However, it's the rare case now where a new computer now comes with XP anymore. Vista's sales number will continue to increase along with the number of Vista x64 sold.

You can sit here and argue that it's pointless to support 64-bit Windows. However, you will continue to see your supported market share shrink over time as more and more new PC are purchased and the obsolete platform you only support is put out to pasture.