AGS for 64-bit

rspiteri · Wed 28/12/2005 19:28:42

Will AGS be updated to be able to run and produce a 64-BIT windows EXE file when the 64-bit Microsoft Windows implementation will be launched?

thanks
Robert

Elliott Hird · Wed 28/12/2005 21:02:44

64-bit is useless.

It's not even useful.

Joseph DiPerla · Wed 28/12/2005 23:33:50

I think 32-bit is good enough. I dont think that just becouse the new OS is 64-bit that all applications run in it have to be 64-bit. I could be wrong, although that would be pretty dumn on MS's part.

Squinky · Wed 28/12/2005 23:48:48

Quote from: Elliott Hird on Wed 28/12/2005 21:02:44
64-bit is useless.

It's not even useful.

Why?

strazer · Thu 29/12/2005 02:24:59

Elliott, most of your posts are so short you come off sounding rather rude.
Please make an effort to explain your opinions in more detail.

Gilbert · Thu 29/12/2005 02:29:16

I think the 64-bit OS is downward compatible with most old window$ stuff, so unless the current AGS engine and editor won't work with such system for some reasons, there's no point to release another version of it specific to the new OS.

monkey0506 · Thu 29/12/2005 04:23:42

Also Elliott, 64 bit isn't completely useless. It was designed to allow systems to handle more at once, a task which I wouldn't exactly label as useless...

Kweepa · Thu 29/12/2005 10:51:19

Perhaps Mr(s) Spiteri intends to use more than 4GB of memory in a game?

hedgefield · Thu 29/12/2005 11:17:20

If you intend to convert video, burn a cd, surf the web, look at some pictures AND play an AGS game at the same time, sure, it'll be very useful.

64-bit doesn't make any existing program run faster. It only makes sure it ontinues running at optimal speed while you have a few other high-demand programs open alongside it (given it has 64-bit support AND you have a 64-bit processor).

Elliott Hird · Thu 29/12/2005 11:33:54

And besides, it requires a very new fangled processor-thingy, and Vista isn't even released yet!

Besides, any self-respecting geek will stay below Vista - What with DRM, software patents etc.

rspiteri · Thu 29/12/2005 15:11:25

Thanks all of you for your replies. My point is let's say I am working with AGS on a 64-bit PC. Will it still be able to produce executable files that run on 64-bit? It's not a question of whether I intend to use 4 GB of memory etc... it's just a curiosity... For example, if the program uses a variable of type INTEGER... will that integer be treated as a 32-bit integer or a 64-bit integer on a 64-bit PC? Cause some calculations may give problems if the wrong range is used.

thanks
Robert

Traveler · Thu 29/12/2005 16:24:06

AGS will create 32-bit executables when building your game. If you're using 64-bit Windows, your game will most probably work without any changes - W64 is backward compatible with W32. I'm not sure about Linux, since I don't use it.

Current computer languages in general differentiate between 32-bit and 64-bit integers (int vs. long or int64 or LONGLONG, etc.) AFAIK, the instruction set for 64-bit processors is the same as for 32-bit processors, only the memory address range is a lot bigger; so mostly pointers are affected, not normal arithmetic.

With all this said, AGS will produce a 32-bit exe so on Win64, it'll run in 32-bit mode; this shouldn't be an issue for you at all.

rspiteri · Thu 29/12/2005 17:34:45

Thanks a lot traveler

. The explanation is great. Problem cleared then

.

thanks again to all
Robert

edmundito · Fri 30/12/2005 03:40:10

Look, if Windows 64-bit edition is not backward compatible, then it's not CJ's fault. Chris Jones will never switch to Windows Vista(Cruiser)! Nevar! (sorry, old joke. You noobs wouldn't understand.)

It's an interesting question to ask, rspiteri, but I think it's rather pointless at the moment. It's not like I'm trying to insult anyone, but there are more important things that concern the future of AGS at the moment.

Pumaman · Wed 04/01/2006 13:57:22

I have no plans to create a 64-bit version of AGS. Of course, it may become necessary in the future, if it turns out that native 64-bit applications run a lot faster than 32-bit ones on 64-bit CPU's, but for now there is no need to create one.

Elliott Hird · Wed 04/01/2006 15:42:54

And remember: Keep offering an up to date 32-bit version! I for one will NEVER upgrade to Vista.

Pumaman · Wed 04/01/2006 21:14:43

Yeah, yeah... I said that about Windows back in 1992.

monkey0506 · Wed 04/01/2006 22:39:07

Bill Gates once said something to the effect of 56 MB of RAM being enough for anybody...or something like that. Well, in any case, saying that you will never upgrade to a new technology is kind of an immature way of thinking. You can't reject change just because you don't necessarily fully understand it. 64 bit will allow you to run more programs at once...I for one could make use of that. And about another 1 GB of RAM, but I don't see that happening any time soon...

Redwall · Wed 04/01/2006 23:37:35

I don't think he's rejecting Vista because he doesn't understand it...

Joseph DiPerla · Wed 04/01/2006 23:50:52

I will upgrade to Vista. I have a powerful enough computer to upgrade with. Although, it will be a while before I upgrade. Maybe one year or two after initial release.