Hi!
I am about to upgrade and wonder if DOpus does x64?
Regards:
Todde
There's a couple of threads with information. Not sure which has the most but a search on "64-bit" will find them.
I think most things work but there are some issues with the hacks that Microsoft put in for "backward compatibility" (AKA living with stupid hacks which save a few seconds when porting 64-bit apps but will annoy us forever.)
Hi and thanks!
But all the posts was old and i wonder if the issues mentioned is fixed...
Todde
No changes so far. I think to fix them will require a 64-bit version of Opus (and all the plugins, joy).
Thinking about it, a hacky VFS plugin could be written to view the 64-bit directories, but that's probably not a great solution. 
very sad to hear...
I guess i have to use my old XP for now then... i can't live without DOpus!
Todde
Doesn't sound like you had a very compelling reason to upgrade to a 64-bit Windows.
(Other things besides Opus also have problems, particularly shell extensions and drivers. Though Opus does work generally; the real problem is that it shows you the pretend 32-bit version of the filesystem, which isn't great for a file manager if you need to look inside system folders. IMO 64-bit Windows is not worth the pain if you don't have any individual processes that need to allocate over 2gig of memory (and/or there are not 64-bit versions of those processes).)
Nah my idea for upgrading to XP x64 was to get the most out of my AMD 64 and nothing else What is the advantage using the x64 XP rather than the old x32? I never play games, mostly surf the internet and stuff... so maby i'll keep using the old XP for now, and maby wait and see what Vista can offer and when DOpus supports Vista...
Todde
My understanding is that for most people/programs (even games) there is no big advantage to a 64-bit OS at the moment.
I've got a PC with AMD 64 x2 chip in it and it's running 32-bit Windows (Media Center). The CPUs are still very fast in 32-bit mode.
I've not seen a valid reason to go 64bit just yet as most applications work without problems in 32bit. Out of the people I know who use 64bit exclusively, they are limited on functional applications and drivers but the increase of speed is tremendous. But why would you want a half functioning operating system that runs a bit faster?
I have decided to try out the trail version of x64 and see how it works.
If i understand you correct i must have software written for x64 or else nothing works, every software i install must support x64 when i have installed the XP x64 then? If so i will NOT use it until there's more software out for the x64 platform.
Todde
That's not entirely true... some 32bit software works without any problems at all... but if you are like most people out there, you will find applications you can't live without break without rhyme or reason under the 64bit emulated sandbox. One application I use fails to display a content window within the IDE (in-house developed plugin, the 64bit version doesn't work either). Since the development I work on is somewhat critical for the environment, I need to have the context sensitive information shown so I can keep the lookup calls in sync with the rest of the application developers. If someone changes their blackbox I/O, the context plugin warns me of the changes and notes the files effected by the change. A game I enjoy playing will not give you any checkbox options in settings so you can never change the strategy or difficulty levels.
Does that make better sense?
The things that break tend to be plugins and extensions since 64-bit processes cannot load 32-bit DLLs and vice versa.
So if you're running a 64-bit Explorer.exe then all your 32-bit shell extensions (e.g. stuff on the right-click context menus) will break.
The other problem is that 32-bit apps see different directories and registry entries to 64-bit apps because Windows redirects/hides/substitutes different directories/registries depending on the type of app that is running. This stupidity is there so that 32-bit bit apps can be recompiled without having to change hardcoded paths like "System32" and "Program Files", even though (a) such paths should never be hardcoded in the first place, (b) it causes confusion when two programs show different things, and (c) it's downright ridiculous that 64-bit binaries are stored in a directory called "System32". (And confusing that 32-bit binaries are stored in SystemWow64 or whatever it's called.) 
This is on top of the fact that a simple recompilation is never all that is needed to turn a 32-bit Windows app into a 64-bit one (you need to check for any pointers smuggled through 32-bit values, which is very common with Win32 programming), so I have to wonder WTF they thought it was worth saving lazy developers (who shouldn't be hardcoding paths in the first place!) a tiny bit of effort for all the pain it causes... Too late now, though. I guess Windows will have this stupidity forever.
I'm all for 64-bit computing but I don't think many people get any benefit from it yet -- so there's no rush to move to it for most people -- and I think Microsoft really dropped the ball with their very visible, annoying hacks in the name of very minor, one-off time-savings for people blindly recompiling badly-written code in the hope that it'll work with no additional effort. Sigh.
That does it!
I don't use Linux because of this
So the best thing for now is to use the old XP and wait for the developers to start writing software that works in a X64 environment. Until then, as i can see it, it's not worth all the hassle and problems with software that don't work. I thought that X64 have bean around for a while now so it's ok to go XP X64 now. If i look on the brught side of this, when i can upgrade my system to dual core or X2 as AMD calls it, maby it's time to go XP X64 or even VISTA X64.... Or is it the same problem when using X2 as using X64 now? The software must be written for X2 (dual core) to get the most out of it?
Todde
You can't use the 64-bit stuff unless the OS is 64-bit, but you can still take advantage of the fact that AMD x2/64 are very fast chips, even for 32-bit work.
For most tasks that don't involve very large numbers or large amounts of in-memory data, 64-bit may actually be slower since the pointers are all larger (whether they need to be or not) and thus occupy more memory.