On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 03:48:06PM -0400, Matthias Julius wrote: > Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You mean win64-only games? Nobody dares to invest in developing that now; > > it would be suicidal. > > I don't know about the practices of game developers, but, from what I > see on Linux it should be minimal effort to port a software to 64 bit > if it is written right. So, I would expect developers to keep > 64-safety in mind when writing new code.
Yes, providing a 64-bit version in addition to the 32-bit one is not too hard if you do things right (they're starting to do that already). But if you release the win64 version only, you are screwed :-). I suppose Microsoft is going to be the only game vendor who does that (they did it for Exchange already). > There seems to be a market for high-end gaming hardware. I imagine > there are people willing to pay a premium for 64bit games that produce > a 10% higher frame rate, too. Only if they have a working platform to run them on, which for win64 is not currently present. > > If a game really needs bigmem, PAE is much more feasible (it is a > > trap, but that's not a problem for the game vendor ;-)). > > Isn't PAE a performance hog? Not a terrible one AFAIK. People are running 32-bit servers with -bigmem hack already. > And it still limits the amount of memory > a process can get. If they got the design right (which I assume they did), once the application is PAE-aware the memory limit up to 2^64 depends on the OS implementation. -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]