Keep it clean
If you believe that a wish duplicates another one or is not meant for the category, use Options button above to report a duplicate or spam.
Add your wish
If there is an item you wish to have on GOG.com and it’s not yet on the wishlist, please add your wish
64bit GoG Galaxy
Added by
Losgann A 64bit version of GoG Galaxy.
BlackStar42X x86-64 CPUs are 32/64 bit hybrids by design. There is no penalty in having a 32-bit application running on them. The only practical benefits a 64-bit built would bring are access to more memory and a (very) slight speed improvement for 64-bit arithmetic. I don't see how an application like Galaxy would benefit of any of that. I think most people are requesting 64 bit because they believe higher numbers are always better but otherwise have no comprehension of the underlying technology.
CodAv Being a cross-platform C++ developer, I don't see any reason nowadays to still build 32-bit executables, not even on Windows as the vast majority of all installations will now be 64 bit.
To clarify a few points brought up here:
The argument that the program would "use more memory" might be true as pointers are 4 instead of 8 bytes, but that memory increase is often in the range of a megabyte or two at most, especially for a relatively small program like this one - but remember 32-bit executables need the whole 32-bit OS subsystem to be loaded, which adds *way more* RAM usage.
32-bit programs also aren't emulated in the OS. They simple use their own set of 32-bit libraries and the OS kernel will provide 32-bit virtual memory addresses, mapping those to the internal 64-bit address space. Since the kernel also has to map 64-bit addresses, there's no measurable difference in performance.
Since GOG Galaxy is already 64-bit on macOS, there shouldn't be any technical reasons that prevent it from running as a 64-bit program on Windows. With a proper CI, GOG can even build both versions and install the appropriate one depending on the host OS architecture.
Adpocalyptic Would be great for optimisation and enhancing perf across diff platforms.
taltamir So many would be experts chiming in with the "64bit is only for ram" nonsense...
No, 64bit is not just ram.
First some background, if you exclude some very early cell phone cpus. then the last x32 processor was manufactured in 2006. The only 32bit OS users are people too ignorant to realize they are using the wrong OS for their CPU.
64bit improves security, performance, and reliability. The numbers show that recompiling in 64bit drastically reduces crashes. There are multiple theories as to why. Maybe it is because 32bit has to be emulated on a 64bit machine via WoW (windows on windows), and getting rid of the emulation layer adds stability. Maybe it is the better support for compilers targetting hardware made post 2006. Maybe a combination of all suggested reasons. but the bottom line is that it works
64bit also has more math registers which makes for faster and more efficient CPU usage. This saved electricity adds up when counted across all users.
Honestly rather than just dual releasing, you should completely dump the 32bit and only release 64bit.
cam1170 I don't know if this would cause issues with the currently available python integrations, but the sooner this is switched, the earlier that devs can recompile. Even EA is coming out with a 64-bit client.
Adpocalyptic Not having this would potentially cause issues in the future :/
goyangi people still make 32-bit binaries in 2021?
why?
aaronfranke This would also help with Linux support, since on Linux it's typical to have 64-bit software (unlike on Windows where 32-bit software is common).
Rhein.Haart The launcher/ client won't benefit from a 64-bit mode much, if at all. Stop asking for useless stuff and focus on realistic ideas, please.
XtremeXgamingX HAVE FUN !! ;)
CardellB Isn't it 64 bit already?
I have GoG Galaxy installed on Catalina, which **ONLY** runs 64-bit apps (damnit Apple, why the heck?) and it runs perfectly.
Locomotor79 i am running a W10 64bits computer and however i try to start it i am not getting the launcher since its ether becausse its 32bits or its something else stopping it from starting but iff that where so i whould have gotten a message from my antivirus program
which i did not recieve.
befor today i had it running however every time it got the same update i did let that happen so launcher restarts its right i should have gotten the message do you whanna start this since the mean exe which whas in properties vinked on admin mode
didnt got that ether i get a stuppid message you have it installed
so i press ok restart it from desktop exe get the admin start message and it frecking workes geuss what same oct1 update it kept repeating itself becausse it whasnt able to as iff something is blocking it for no apperent reason
i did every thing the custommer support says i and is still doesnt run the launcher properly yes i got the 32bits in the taskmanager yet i canot fins the launcher not even whit alt+tab combination
this is getting on my nerves whit this lazy way off helping
they need to make a 64bits version since the game whil be launched anywhy wether its 16/32/64bits games
But a 64bits launcher whould really help since W10 doesnt really use 32bits that much anymore
Adpocalyptic wait... it wasn't already?
Xperto No need for 64bit support for a game launcher, you won't notice a difference an it will use more memory
nade-- Would be nice to get 64bit option.
Filatterio Maybe create a 64 bit version but even a 32-16 bit one for the older machines, or for who enjoys the VM environment
Filatterio oh, do you happen perhaps to be doing an italian windows version, too?
It would be good to localize the program even in italian, thanks
Filatterio I opt for a 64bit windows version because if a windows system (like mine) uses all 64 bit applications it runs smoothly, faster and has not the lag that 32-16 bit apps give. And it could run many more apps!
khankhan00074 good
zivedo Why 64bit? If GOG Galaxy uses 3.7gb ram or more the part should be uninstalled.
Andtha @IronCurtaiNYC: it's not yet the year 2038, is it? And after that, it wouldn't be very hard to set a system time before 2038 to run a game, would it?!? Also, a Windows system isn't necessarily affected by it, only some 32-bit applications are: blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/mthree/2008/04/21/another-look-at-the-year-2038-problem/ - in plain words: that's not a real argument, since the client is actively developed and it could, like 32-bit Windows, be a 32-bit application until the year 30827.
NordCool +1
IronCurtaiNYC @watergate_: Keeping 32-bit stuff around wouldn't be a good idea: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
GhostLeqi +1
kirkir2000 yesssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
watergate_ wil galaxy 2.0 be 64bit? if so, maybe keep a 32bit version galazy for lower end PCs like mine :(
Bloodreigne69 I understand compatibily and that and with game moving to the 64 bit systems, having the client which is good, comtinue to be supported, and move to 64 bit as well. Remasters like Ni no Kuni and newer games have completely dropped the format. Maybe a proffing to be able to support older games in the future
Vexz89 Doesn't matter if it helps or not. We live in the year 2019. Let 32 Bit applications finally die. I don't wanna live in the past.
Andtha I still think it doesn't help. A 64-Bit client shouldn't be necessary to install and play 32-Bit games on a 32-Bit Windows machine from the pre-Athlon 64 and the pre-Intel Core generation of PCs. That the client will go 64-Bit eventually is absolutely clear. macOS 10.15 Catalina will only run 64-Bit apps. Still, I wonder what a 64-Bit client would be good for when GOG still sells 16- and 32-Bit games...
LinguaOccultus +1
TheJohnAngel 32bit client in 2019 is just lazy work. Upgrade to 64bit please
NordCool +++++++++
thomq 32-bit does not help with a maximum of compatibility when it comes to macOS which for several years has been portending the eventual demise of 32-bit applications for it. 64-bit will be required for macOS, if not this coming autumn (2019), then certain soon after.
Apple already requires 64-bit for iOS, no 32-bit allowed. For a few years now, I think.
Democrab The reason for pushing the client to 64bit is future proofing it. 32bit isn't going to be around forever and most PCs can run 64bit stuff perfectly adequately.
There's also no reason that the downloader automatically picks between a 32bit or 64bit build when installing.
Andtha www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/59558-28-amd64-faster
That's basically it. PLEASE READ the top posting of this forum topic!
In addition, 64-Bit on x86 also benefits from wider registers (8 on x86, 15 on amd64), and newer software will also benefit from the use of SIMD (like SSE) that has to be available on x64 (which is x86-64, what AMD calls AMD64 and Intel calls Intel 64). (BTW, cutting edge would be the use of AVX, not SSE).
While there were cases when 64-Bit would actually slow down a system (https://www.iinuu.eu/en/it-guru/windows-7-32-vs-64-bit-performance-benchmark), nowadays this won't happen anymore (https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu-1710-x8664&num=1).
Yes, the future is 64-Bit. But Windows is still in very good shape to handle 32-Bit anyhow. And it should remain that way, otherwise we will run out of options to run our Good Old 32-Bit Games...
Andtha Stay with 32-bit for a maximum of compatibility. What good does it do if some of the games on Windows are still 32-Bit and you could happily play them on a 32-Bit Windows 10 (yes! it still exists!) when the GOG Galaxy client is only available in 64-Bit? In reverse you don't gain anything from having a 64-Bit client on a 64-Bit Windows, because every 64-Bit CPU and every x64 operating system has means to run 32-Bit software easily for compatibility reasons. In not, even DOSBox or ScummVM wouldn't run...
hanshan Make galaxy 64 bit because its inevitable on platforms, already here.
jasen13 @metaphpase I totally agree, after all you can still run 16 bit windows software with very few hassles - if you've got linux.
Merranvo Does anyone know where skeletonbow is getting his sources? 30% boost just for using 64-bit!?!
Let alone that having tons of IFDEF statements so that you can keep the mess of 32 bit code and 64 bit code in the same codebase is rather lame.
And having to compile both versions for testing new code, and throughly test both of them because sometimes you have a bug in one but not the other.... LAME!
Simplify your life... stick with 32-bit!
wildkage123 What would the client get from being 64-bit? It's not like it uses much ram or is heavy on the system
Holzkohlen On Windows? I don't care AT ALL. Gimme dat linux client though!
Andtha I also don't get it. On Windows it doesn't make a difference. On macOS it will have to go 64-Bit... (Apple requirement for what comes after High Sierra...) On Linux (Unix) it can also be benificial to have a native 64-Bit client. But since a lot of games will only run with a multilib environment (32-Bit and 64-Bit libraries) it is not that important, but it could be a good way to keep the enthusiats happy.
MetaPhaze Anyway, I don't care about a 64 bit version of GoG Galaxy, I would just like to be able to use it. No GNU/Linux version. No version that runs in WINE.
MetaPhaze "There will be a day when 32 bit dies out"... probably not, there will always be 32 bit, some of the best games ever written were written in the 32 bit days... enthusiasts will always keep 32 bit around... there are still 8 bit machines around... i hate to say it but there will be a day when 64 bit dies... no one cares about half the games written in the 64 bit days, and 256 bit and 1024 bit is coming up rather fast... faster than you realize... no one is going to keep 64 bit around like they do 32 bit so 64 bit will die.
ExileFox While i want 64bit support in most applications, i see little reason why GoG Galaxy should become 64bit at the moment. Steam is still 32bit
bierdeckelkanne But ... why? Seriously nothing would change at all.
skeletonbow To those suggesting GOG would have to maintain two codebases to provide a 64bit client... This is totally and completely false. Virtually every open source software project easily supports multiple 32bit and 64bit architectures from a single source code base. The single code can be compiled for 32bit or 64bit depending on the platform or environment it is being built within. Galaxy isn't open source, but the exact same principle applies. Nobody in their right mind forks a codebase into two separate codebases and maintains them separately for 32bit and 64bit architectures. That is insanity. As for whether or not there would be a benefit, yes - 64bit binaries offer up to a 30% performance boost on x86_64 architecture depending on how CPU bound an application is, and web browsers do very much benefit from this both in their web rendering pipeline, user interface, javascript engine and other elements. There's no question a 64bit browser or gaming client provides better performance. The question is whether having two separate binaries available would confuse customers and cause an unnecessary support burden. Also, they would have to quality test 2 different clients instead of one, doubling the efforts of their very limited resources. As long as GOG still supports any 32bit OS they will most likely ship a 32bit Galaxy client as it works on both 32bit and 64bit operating systems and they only have to test one client instead of two. Having said that, it is nice to have native 64bit apps such as this, but even though it would provide up to a 30% performance boost, that is pretty negligible benefit for a gaming client that isn't doing anything where performance actually matters for the most part. I imagine this one will be a low priority for them.
amossoma I just want to run it on my 64bit linux (wine). Because of 64bit there are some problems with libraries.
Dark_Ronius I don't want to claim to be a 32-bit lover... I regularly used Waterfox (the unofficial 64-bit Firefox) before Mozilla officially supported it. However, there is the fact that a 64-bit version of Galaxy offers no/little benefits compared to a 32-bit version (on windows), and gives GoG two codebases they need to maintain.
Now with Firefox I felt the difference was firstly, the code was open source, so others could take it and develop a 64-bit version of it. Secondly, they took in millions of dollars and were a huge name, so could afford to do it (and used to feel more like a shared non-profit). Thirdly, especially with html5 and new technologies coming through, it felt more and more like it could benefit from a seperate version.
I compare this to Galaxy, which has only recently come out of beta. On top of this, the use case is pretty limited... At the root it is a glorified downloader and launcher. I don't say that out of criticism, as Galaxy has quickly become a favourite of mine. But the technology comes down to downloading, checking for updates, installing... And maybe showing videos and pictures of games.
Now it's all well and good letting others have what they want, and they are welcome to it. If they announced 64-bit support tomorrow I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. However, as this is a wishlist, and as they have finite resources to implement them, I would prefer they implement other features before this feature got my vote. The only exception I can think of is people wanting it for WINE, but then this is where GoG need to decide whether their strategy would be to focus on a Galaxy client for WINE, or focus on one for linux as a whole (WINE maybe makes more sense as it makes it run on other OS' besides linux?)
BuryTomorrow So many people commenting it's useless. Jesus, you 32 bit exe lovers won't lose your prize chicken. There are literally thousands of apps out there with multiple versions, both x64 and x86. and guess what? People can have the one that suits them better. Why is it that there's always the conservative mentality that doesn't want for anything to change and stay frozen in time? Let others have what they want. Like if that would ever hurt you. Quoting In Flames... "a sign of times, my firend".
120 comments about this wish