say hello to 64 bit

Post by **nikos** » 2008 Sep 13, 08:41

in reply to your 64 bit requests I have started work for an 64 bit xplorer2

since i've got no x64 developer platform (hardware) I'd appreciate some help from people that can help with tests and debugging. If you are interested and wish to help, please send me an email (click button below) and i'll add you to a special list

snemarch · Post by **snemarch** » 2008 Sep 13, 12:19

:inlove:

I definitely wouldn't mind giving a hand with this - I'll fire off a mail straight away

Mr.Pleasant · Post by **Mr.Pleasant** » 2008 Sep 13, 12:29

Great to hear that, Nikos!

jgt1942 · Post by **jgt1942** » 2008 Sep 14, 00:46

Will the new version run on 32 bit as well? If so add me to the test group. Also I have one new PC that does not have any OS on it. I can install 64 bit - would you prefer Vista or WinXP?

Post by **nikos** » 2008 Sep 14, 05:26

this will be a separate version that only runs on 64 bit, so I don't need any generic 32 bit testers, thanks

jgt1942 · Post by **jgt1942** » 2008 Sep 15, 06:45

I was just asking about the 32/64 bit just to simplify things on my end and run the same test on multiple systems.

Currently I have one system I just built and it has NO OS installed. I can install WinXP or Vista 64 bit. I'm leaning toward Vista only because that seems to be the way the world is going. I'm not a fan of Vista mainly because MS move stuff around and I find it difficult to find the darn stuff.

dougis · Post by **dougis** » 2008 Sep 23, 22:37

Just sent you an email about testing the new version.
I am running 64 bit Vista Ultimate and would love to help test the new version out (then all of my shell extensions will work in 64 bit and I can stop installing 2 versions of TortoiseSVN

).

jazzcat · Post by **jazzcat** » 2008 Sep 29, 21:44

just out of interest, what is your planned approach towards building the 64 bit version? will this mean all versions will be ported to VS2008?

Post by **nikos** » 2008 Sep 30, 05:02

it looks like i'll manage to get by using my trusty VS6. Perhaps next week I'll blog about the 64 bit compilation process

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2008 Sep 30, 07:31

nikos wrote:it looks like i'll manage to get by using my trusty VS6. Perhaps next week I'll blog about the 64 bit compilation process

For testing purposes (and just fun), the Academic Version of VS2008 is available from Amazon. Quite inexpensive (regarding the commercial version) it can only be used for non-professional purposes, obviously. Not sure what potential watermarks are done on this when producing release compilations, as for all intents and purposes mine seems identical.

Though the Amazon site is unclear, it is the complete professional version, and does include the full MFC, easily producing x64 executables (C++, C#, VB, Server, et al, fully included).

Interestingly, Microsoft seem to consider everyone outside of the US as being on the honour system, as this Academic version is only sold outside the continental US, no checks/verifications necessary (Amazon.co.uk is wonderfully egalitarian that way).

Patches happily up to the (recent) .NET 3.5 (VS) SP1 under Vista x64. Provides full updated TR1 and MFC support.

Far superior to VS6, for once Microsoft actually managed to do something right. It's even (dare I say it), superior to the Borland which says a lot. If one can't afford a full Professional or Team release, this is a great way to verify compatibility before using VS6 (or other) for releases.

Looking forward to the blog.

Postscriptum: "You must have 1 posts before you can post URL's/Links." How rude.

Copy/paste the http to http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h ... ic&x=0&y=0

jazzcat · Post by **jazzcat** » 2008 Sep 30, 10:29

well vs2008 may be superior, but i think the problem is in the porting process.

i imagine that for a project of the size of x2, porting to vs2008 may not be a trivial task. the compiler implements different standards and is a bit stricter, and may refuse to compile the code without a *lot* of painful modifications.

this is the problem i imagine nikos would be up against if ever he tries to port to vs2008.

on the other hand as has been mentioned in other posts, the longer one leaves it, as new compiler versions are released, the mountain of work required to port increases...

it's a tightrope!

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2008 Sep 30, 12:46

jazzcat wrote:...but i think the problem is in the porting process.

Quite true, but that's why God invented #pragma - to prevent people having anything better to do on Sunday afternoons.

Being a Medievalist myself, I'm the last person to advocate change; I treasure my copy of Kernighan & Ritchie and personally consider Bjarne Stroustrup a meddling busybody, but that's just me.

jazzcat wrote:...the longer one leaves it, as new compiler versions are released, the mountain of work required to port increases...

Indeed, if one chooses to develop anything, and provide support for it, it rather makes sense to (as the cliché goes) use the right tools for the job. Especially considering this topic - the bemusing popularity of x64 (Vista variety) amongst gamers who mistakenly believe it will make everything faster, does at the very least have enough trickle-down effect to provide the impetus for developers to be more flexible in their thinking. XP (and by extension, x86) has heard the shadow of it's death-knell, so as ever, we're dragged kicking and screaming into the regrettable future. Could be worse: next someone will wonder why X2 doesn't have a Google Toolbar. Shoot 'em all. (After they've paid.)

Again, personally, in a perfect world we'd all be holding hands and singing the hymns of GPL-togetherness (and letting the great unwashed complaining user-base solve it's own bloody problems)... but thankfully the real world's not like that - it's much more cruel.

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2008 Sep 30, 13:06

ROTFL at your post, Kilmatead, ... and with similar sentiments.

I just want to add one thing: It's not just gamers that want/need x64. Anybody who does a lot of graphics work knows the real benefit of the larger memory supported by it. (x32 has 3GB limit). For example, serious amateur and professional photographers have the need. ... But I suppose we can put the snapshot artist photographer wanna-be's in with the gamers who may not have a real need, but serve to push advances for the rest of us by their demands.

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2008 Sep 30, 13:37

fgagnon wrote:For example, serious amateur and professional photographers have the need.

Granted, and video editors, CAD, high-def porn mongers, virtualization gurus, all are happier in the brave new world of "more memory than we really need."

Not unrelated to this, due to that recognition, how many years has to taken Adobe to make Photoshop x64 compatible (I'm even assuming it is, at the moment).

They did more to popularize (and rightfully so) the Gimp due to their lack of attention/support in that intervening time than any word of mouth could ever accomplish. The Gimp being free isn't exactly what you'd call competition, but one less mass-market Photoshop user makes the world a better place.

By extension, X2 is not the only ice-cream shop on the block - though it seems to have higher quality chocolate than the rest.

4GB is great. Just enough room to stretch, but not enough for cobwebs to accrue.

I'm ranting off topic. I'll shut up now. :D

Post by **nikos** » 2008 Oct 01, 04:56

just to clarify i don't stick with VS6 because i'm cheap (i have VS2007). It's just that I can't be bothered using the new ATL and WTL and new compiler on a project that currently pays the bread and beer. Too much uncertainty!