Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:46 am
Posts: 3
|
Stevecrox wrote: Yeah but when they lock out users who can play the game for no good reason I think we're allowed to complain. I run Windows XP x64 Pro edition, its been around for a while now and companies are slowly creating x64 bit versions of their software to run on it. However the really key thing about it, is its runs everything happily from Windows XP SP2. The only issues are when someone has tried being too specific and misses the path c:\program files x86\ Gametap should run fine, unless they are trying to hook into the kernal, or do some mighty dodgy stuff which they shouldn't.
Considering that GameTap is a content delivery service, much like Vongo, iTunes, or Steam, I feel it would be a safe assertion to say that they ensure others can not access or tamper with the game files directly. That being said, services such as Charter On Demand use at least one third party encryption and verification service that I know of. Considering that Windows XP Professional x64 Edition was released to RTMs on 4.25.05, I'd be willing to assume that the issue doesn't rest on GameTap's inability to produce a functional x64 product - but in some other extenuating factor.
As a x64 user, you must admit that the releases of formerly incompatible code have been, at times, very slow. Between beta drivers, beta patches, and beta betas - it's been sort of a rough ride for those looking forward to an x64 native OS. Stated previously, there would be no conceivable way that those in the upper ranks of GameTap are unaware of compatibility issues with the software and Win.XP.Pro.x64. The general idea of such a service is to provide the largest number of people possible - with the largest selection of games that can be acquired - and offer something worthwhile. I would only consider this an "intentional" thing of "refusing" to support x64 if an error prompt populated upon download reading something to the general extent of, "FATAL ERROR in GameTap.exe: You will not be running this application, you 12-Stage-Pipeline Nerd".
Stevecrox wrote: Then when other Xp x64 users have tried contacting support they have been told its a "fake OS" which they don't plan to support. Whats there to support? Its pretty much XP but with an updated kernal. As for "fake os" sorry thats an arrogant attititude which needs attacking, its not a 'fake os' it was an OS released because AMD have been doing 64bit chips for a few years and Microsoft didn't want to lose out on the 64bit OS market. I can still buy it in the shops today and software/drivers written for it today all (excusing creatives badly written monstrosities) work perfectly.
No offence toward your sources, but I can not imagine that anyone would state that x64 is a "fake OS". As for "don't plan to support", I'm told that "x64 Windows is not currently supported". "Whats there to support"? Changes to user account access privileges, changes to the way that some programs address memory, and drivers. Of all the people that I would expect to have some sympathy toward driver support for x64, a user of the OS would rank pretty high up there. There are multiple Microsoft articles on changes that programmers will need to anticipate with x64 and Vista - and there are a fair number of changes. It's not as if the Dev team at Redmond sat around a table looking at XP Pro - shrugged - and slapped a few extra lines into the kernel allowing it to address larger allocations of physical and virtual memory.
As of 4/04 - though x64 was supposed to already be out and running along-side the Clawhammers - it was already being pushed back to Q4 of 2004 - which later turned into Q2 of 2005. WOW64, Buffer Overflow Protection (non-DEP related, as that came about in SP2, then Win.Serv.2003.SP1), SSE/SSE2 registers in x64 floating-point calculations, adjustments to Active Directory - the list goes on. As for "Its pretty much XP with an updated kernel" - the correction to that would be "It(')s pretty much Windows Server 2003 (SP1)".
I'm -honestly- not trying to be Mr. Intraweb Smar.T.Pants, in the least. If anything, just consider it as playing devil's advocate.
Stevecrox wrote: I put up with that attitude from Avermedia, I've had it from Belkin, Hercules, Cannon and Hewlett Packard. These companies had to write entirely new drivers for me and they did after much organised whining, GT don't have to anything except make a change in their installer, and main app. One thats not hard.
Unless you know the full process that the program goes through to run, don't you feel it is somewhat unfair assume that someone can just snap their fingers and make it work. There is a wide difference between "attitude" and what appear to be simply complications.
Just my opinion.
|
|
Login
FAQ
Search
