Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

What? No 64-bit support for Cisco???

Cisco doesn't support their VPN's on Windows Vista 64. What does this have to do with Galactic Civilizations? A lot actually.

I have been working on the GalCiv II v2.0 (tentative release date is November 5) to update the AI and take care of a long list of little pet peeves of when I'm playing.

When I do this from home, I need to use the VPN because I use Vista 64-bit. And Cisco's VPN doesn't support 64-bit Vista which makes it tougher to get updates back into the main source tree. I can still do it, I just have to use other machines at home to transfer but it's annoying.

Speaking of 64-bit, I will tell you right now that no future Stardock developed games will go out that don't explicitly support 64-bit Windows Vista and beyond. And what I mean by that are native 64-bit versions. Not 32-bit games running in compatibility but full native 64-bit. Of course we'll still support 32bit too but there's a lot of performance boosts we could provide to 64-bit players in the future.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

oh that is good to hear..i am upgrading my comp soon and i want a 64 bit machine.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wild Thing, I think I love you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

AWESOME!!! /nerdgasm

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lord Reliant

Join Date 03/2006

+39

Good to hear. 64-bit support, while much more widely adopted recently, is still sketchy. Just because something says it works with Vista doesn't mean 64-bit, too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Does that mean you'll finally make Impulse full 64bit?

Cause I'd hate to point back at this post and call you a hypocrit... but I'll do it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

CobraA1

Join Date 09/2006

+26

It appears Cisco has new software - their "AnyConnect VPN Client." I guess they want you to use that now.

As an alternative, you could try OpenVPN. I haven't tried it myself, but it looks like a decent alternative.

Great to hear you're adding 64 bit support to your games! I look forward to seeing what you can do with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

As an alternative, you could try OpenVPN. I haven't tried it myself, but it looks like a decent alternative.

OpenVPN works perfectly. My university uses it and I had never problems with it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

Of course we'll still support 32bit too but there's a lot of performance boosts we could provide to 64-bit players in the future.

What kind of performance boost do you get with 64-bit? Are you doing double computation? Or is there just more boost available with pre-computation that you can do with a bigger slice of memory.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I hope they fix that soon. As I am going to 64 bit on my next OS upgrade, and I have to use VPN.

Oh well, there is still Virtual PC.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Cisco supports 64 bits in their ASA firewalls using ASA OS v.8

Cisco sux, overpriced and their firewalls are totally out of date and overly complicated = Bad OS.

Simon CCNP!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Templar2k,

comment 10

Cisco supports 64 bits in their ASA firewalls using ASA OS v.8

I am pretty sure that we have connected with a 64-bit os to the SSL VPN on the ASA. If you are still running a Pix there is really no hope. I like Cisco for it's universal appeal. I hate that they dropped the Pix so quickly.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Last year in my networking classes I was wondering why the teacher was going Cisco this and Cisco that and I see why now. They don’t actually give a dam so they need other people to.

While I have never actually looked at the technical reason for having 64-bit and am happy with my 32-bit vista stardock adding support for both is good.

Successfully updated karma reason!

CobraA1

Join Date 09/2006

+26

The TWiT podcasts I listen to are full of ads advertising Astaro and special deals for former Pix users.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Solam

Join Date 03/2007

+16

32 bits? 64bits... kibles and bits....

I have a new machine 32 bits vista... what does that do for me in regards with games... do I need trash everything and get a 64 bit machine?

As you can see I know nothing about it... can somebody help me out a think of me as a dummy for this and you will probably hit the mark

Thanks in advance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kryo

Join Date 05/2003

+457

As you can see I know nothing about it... can somebody help me out a think of me as a dummy for this and you will probably hit the mark

On a 32-bit system, no matter how much memory you have in your machine, Windows can only use so much, and any given program, even less.

On 64-bit, those limits get increased way beyond the current capacities of the hardware, so that you can do much more stuff at once, and games can have more "stuff" and prettier graphics in them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Solam

Join Date 03/2007

+16

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

Speaking of 64-bit, I will tell you right now that no future Stardock developed games will go out that don't explicitly support 64-bit Windows Vista and beyond. And what I mean by that are native 64-bit versions. Not 32-bit games running in compatibility but full native 64-bit. Of course we'll still support 32bit too but there's a lot of performance boosts we could provide to 64-bit players in the future.

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Solam,

reply 16

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

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting kryo,

reply 15

On a 32-bit system, no matter how much memory you have in your machine, Windows can only use so much, and any given program, even less.

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...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Now I am pissed mad.

Welcome to the club.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Solam

Join Date 03/2007

+16

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Solam,

reply 21

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).

Successfully updated karma reason!

kryo

Join Date 05/2003

+457

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Sole Soul,

reply 18

@Thoumsin

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

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...

Successfully updated karma reason!

CobraA1

Join Date 09/2006

+26

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...

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.

My point is that your "native 64 bits" is in reality IA-32e... a 32 bit processor with expension...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!