riprjak

not true, that's a MAJOR misconception... 64-bit just means more accurate decimals the boost in power is minimal. the power boost you're seeing in 64-bit CPUs is due to the other aspects of the CPU that they've changed, not because of the extra depth of math <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 64 bit means more mathematical precision, but this precision helps speed by being able to work with floating point values faster. Of course, still nowhere near a gpu which is why it's nto that great. I guess if you use software rendering though, you'll get big advantages with those cards in graphics But anyway, the nice thing about 64 bit is that it can access more memory at one time and enables us to have more ram (though higher ram isn't going to be a necessity for awhile either since we can already have like 4 gb). 64 bit processors also have "wider" registers making them able to process more data at a time without having to go and fetch from ram again. This could be of use if things were optimized for it. However, this is unlikely considering that 64 bit processors are not at all standard nor will they be in 2 years. When they are they will be better though for some things where all this matters. It's kinda like a processor with extra l2 cache. It will help for some things but not for others. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The simple fact is that 64bit is SLOWER than 32bit as 32bit is SLOWER than 16bit using comparable techniques. Speed increases come from changes in programming techniques to utilise methodologies which were not possible with smaller words. Certainly anything that involves heavy maths, particularly vector ops and matrices, will be sped up significantly due to less passes needed, and additional registers in x86_64 mode compared to x86 mode (amd64) further increase speed of processing, the inclusion of the mmu and agpgart on the CPU help to by reducing system overhead and latency. The real advantages of 64bit, beyond the low hanging fruit of encryption/media encoding, are a few years away at least. Programmers have to get used to optimising for 64bit. Indeed, until 32bit ix86 is obsolete, we are unlikely to see significant speed increases at all. err! jak

AFAIK, Bioware only had the Forgotten Realms license, not a "D&D" license (although the point is moot now that WoTC have released D&D under an open license). This was what Atari acquired (once again, AFAIK). Although troika's Temple of Elemental Evil suggests Atari may have acquired a licence for Greyhawk too (or perhaps that was a once off). Course, I could be wrong err! jak

I think Atari still directly run "Melbourne House" in Australia (the guys that did that transformers game for consoles)... but thats not really pertinant to rpg development

That is not exacty true I can not count the times I have seen older computers from all the big name manufacturers that have limited the amount of ram per slot. Sometimes as low as 64 MBs with only 2 slots that doesn't make a condusive environment for high amounts of ram. It is much better now but you know as well as I do computers and software are legacy animals, which is probably their biggest problem. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hence AMDs brilliant yet flawed descision to make 32 bit capable 64bit chips guarantee that 32bit will be around for at least the next product cycle... We are all chained to history; and IT still hasnt "matured" in that new products are, by and large, significant improvements over their predescessors and appear almost daily. Eventually (perhaps in a couple of hundred years they will settle down and be more like cars and fridges, functional life spans measured in years, not minutes Course, as a compulsive early adopter of technology, I could be considered part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I am not real sure why you see this as odd. All you have to do is take into account the average amount of ram per pc. Now does that mean there aren't people who use more? No not at all but if you take an average it is usually a small percentage of people that need more than that. It was apearantly something Ms felt was a low priority. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When I say "odd", I mean strange design descision. It is poor form to hardcode limitations into software that dont exist in hardware. PAE (Physical Address Extension) allows a 32bit x86 processor to address 64GB, prior to 64bit x86, this was the only way to enable serious database/content serving on x86 boxes. This feature has existed since Pentium Pro's and it doesnt seem logical for an operating system not to provide access to it. I also fail to understand why windows cant address greater than 2GB for a single app, that seems like nothing more than an arbitrary limit. addendum; according to microsoft.com, windows 2000 allows PAE at boot "multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT="Windows 2000 Advanced Server" /PAE /basevideo /sos" in the "boot.ini" enables this; which Im assuming is the config file for the windows bootloader. err! jak.

Hmm you didn't quite read one of my posts. 64 bit needs to stadarsise some things. In AMD's case they need a standard socket, decide which bus they are going to use PCI or PCI Express, and if DDR 2is what they want. As I stated when AMD makes a move to these probably with in the next few months to a year the early adopters get screwed. I mean they have already made the move to socket 939 and said it was their standard now, and PCI express boards if I remember correctly are on the move as we speak. AMD needs to decide what they are going to do and do it. I am not bashing AMD I just want them to hurry up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> PCI-X and DDR2 will trickle in, as with microsoft and the 32bit burden, there is so much momentum out there that mass manufacture of the "new" standards will lag. I doubt if we will see the death of AGP+PCI motherboards in favour of PCI-X in the near future. If you want to wait for this, it will be the scale of YEARS. For now, if you want PCI-X/DDR2, you will pay more. The problem with moving exclusively to PCI-X is then you have alot of pissed off demographic with their latest "uberl33t" agp graphics card which has become useless. Unfortunately I think that consumer volumes of PCI-X are the chicken and larger volumes of PCI-X graphics cards are the egg. err! jak.

All of the media composers I know use macs; everything else is second class. Agreed. It seems odd that win32 is limited to 2GB per app, seems odd not to use or make available PAE addressing. Of course, besides specific *brands*, Im not quite sure exactly what linux lacks softwarewise. err! jak

Let me guess - those of us that already have Windows 32bit will have to pay for Windows 64bit? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course you will have to pay, MS's business is selling operating systems. If they dont keep selling the upgrades to you, they are no more. If you are sick of paying for the operating system, switch to open source, where businesses give away the OS but charge for the training/support (as an individual, you can learn to do this yourself); but dont bitch about a company charging you for their product; thats the same as complaining to have to pay for nwn2 because you bought nwn1, LOL.

There's already WinXP 64bit. Hopefully more and more drivers are being developed for that. Who knows when (and if !?) Longhorn really hits the shelves - not before '06 anyway. I can't wait to build a new 64bit system - always useful as far as more RAM goes. -Marc <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You need more than 4GB of ram in your desktop system then do you?? 32bit yeilds 4GB addressable space, so a 32bit OS can access 4GB of ram, cant speak for windows, of course, as I dont use it; I understand windows 9x's had issues using more than 512MB and a limit of 2GB for ram (google). The main advantage on desktops is the additional registers in 64bit mode on x86_64 chips; or the ability to use 64bit words for extreme maths like encoding (mpeg etc), raytracing and compiling Of course, PAE on x86 chips (well, Pentium Pro and later) allows for 64GB of address space; so I *really* doubt desktop users will require the increased memory boundaries offered by 64bit processors; accessing terabytes of pr0n are we

Well, we linux users have had stable 64bit x86 OS releases since ~january this year... personally I've been using an amd64 3200+ on an MSI K8T neo FSIR2 since Aug/Sep last year and lurve 64bit. Content creation (mp3/divx encoding and compiling) is phenomenally fast. I use 32bit compatibility libraries for things unavailable in 64bit (like wine and windows apps and the nwn client). ut2004 has a 64bit client so its all good As for standards, its basically just x86 with extra registers and longer words; its already a "standard". Ok, new instructions exist like NX etc... (ok, NX isnt new, its just been reborn on x86 architecture , but the only thing I see holding back 64bit is the mass of 32bit optimised development. Also, since Intel have copied the x86_64 concept, it would seem to be a "standard" of its own now. Other "standards", such as DX9 (is it REALLY a standard if it is proprietary??) seems hobbled specifically for 32bit (it isnt, AFAIK extensible to support 64bit words, for example). The fact that 64bit processors like amd64 support 32bit mode as well suggests that microsoft will continue their lowest common denomenator approach and not support it except for server side hardware. OpenGL, however, lends itself nicely to implementation in any architecture due to its more flexible and open basis (hint hint, Direct3D from DX9 is a SUBSET of the capabilities of openGL 2.0... LOL, off soapbox now) Hopefully the boys at Redmond can smell the breeze and are putting some effort in to serious support for 64bit across all their APIs with their next round of offerings. Ive recenly added a dual processor opteron and amd64FX to the mix; the only 32bit left in my house is my notebook and the PS2 the notebook is due for an upgrade later this year, that will probably stay 32bit unless I can find one without a radeon card (ATI do not currently show any signs of seriously supporting 64bit, unlike nvidia who have had drivers available since late last year). However, 32bit will have a VERY long tail due to the sheer force of momentum in the market for x86 processors, how many of you know someone still running windows 98?? or 95?? Gamers, enterprise back end, multimedia and CAD are the likely drivers to 64bit x86, because these people are the only ones to gain advantage from the longer words, extra registers and extra addressable RAM. Generic office users havent really needed upgrades recently... other than those driven by the artificial overhead MS introduce with successive OS releases. Course, I could just be rambling err! jak ut2004 has full, non-beta 64bit support far cry has, AFAIK, beta 64bit support (doesnt play nice in linux so I dont really play it). 64bit client (linux) for doom3 is expected when they finally release them several "linux" game clients, like vendetta online happily build for 64bit targets, but I suspect the question was for "commercial" games. Steam (linux version) reports that I am using 64bit binaries for dedicated servers for HL/CS...

Except SJGames owns the traveller rights now IIRC, maybe bother them to add it to gurps online Course, there already was a travelller game back in the day done by SSI back in the days of EGA Travellers galaxy creation system lent itself suprisingly well to computerisation. I remember whacking up some fortran code to help me generate games back in the day. Yes, Im old enough that I not only remember but know how to code fortran err! jak

MY'00 Subaru Impreza WRX STi everyone deserves to own a rally car