So... will there be 64-bit suport... ever?

What's NI's position on 64-bit support for the GR3 VST? Any hope of there being a release before Windows 7 ships? So far 64-bit computing with Vista has been a wash.

Mainly I blame MS for releasing a 32-bit version of their "next gen" OS in the first place, but it's getting really frustrating - I'm on my 3rd 64-bit CPU now, and I have yet to run anything 64-bit that's added any value. In fact, by finally installing Vista x64, I've essentially converted my desktop into a doorstop.

 

For GuitarRig isolated, there's not reason at all to run it 64-bit. What does it need 3 GB+ application RAM for? (but please educate me). Very few audio apps have come out in 64-bit versions as well. One recent exception is Tascam's GigaSampler, but as stated you do need a full 64-bit ecosystem to make use of it (64-bit CPU, 64-bit OS, 64-bit apps - and that includes any hosts and all of its other plugins). A giga sampler like that does indeed eat memory, but most other audio apps do not (relatively speaking). There are also disk-caching teknologies that make the 64-bit performance gains neglible.
Of course we all want the *best* version possible, but there haven't been enough pull for 64-bit yet. AFAIU making a 64-bit version of an app is much more work than just cut&paste and change some registers, so they need to justify the effort. It's a hen and egg situation again, but the shift from 32-bit to 64-bit is a much less radical one for most apps (and so the benefit is less obvous), than the jump from 16-bit to 32-bit were, which was huge (and the benefits evident).

 

I hear you, but I'm not really chasing performance here so much as plain old compatibility. I've got a MoBo that refused to install XP, so I wound up running Vista x64. (Hard to justify the CPU's and bzillions of gigs of RAM you can score for a dollar these days w/out 64-bit addressing.)

But you may be right - assuming a 64-bit host can properly handle the s/w interfaces w/ a 32-bit plug-in. I've been having a hell of a time getting *anything* to run under Vista 64, and I've read that GR3 standalone won't load at all (though I haven't personally tried it.)

However, I had some luck last night (huzzah!) w/ the 64-bit version of Sonar 6.2 - the app loaded, talked more or less OK with my audio interface, and ran the GR3 VST very nicely. (Ableton 7, by contrast, is totally flaky under Vista x64.)

So yeah, perhaps this isn't as pressing as I thought it was yesterday. It looks like the host application devs (esp. Ableton!) are the ones to hound for the time being.

As far as the chicken and the egg, sufficient pull for 64-bit support, and all of that, I appreciate the economies involved, *but* it's all gotten a little absurd. And I'm not just pointing the finger at NI here; it's the entire industry. I cited MS because I think they missed a big opportunity w/ Vista: they should have made Vista a 64-bit OS exclusively, and supported XP as the 32-bit alternative. This would have avoided a lot of confusion, and provided a legitimate motivator for people to upgrade, as well as giving s/w developers a clear point of focus for current development. Instead we're all swimming in limbo, running a 32-bit OS and apps on 64-bit CPU's (for the nth generation already) and in many cases much more memory than we can actually use.

 

I run GuitarRig3 as VST as well as Solo on Vista64 without any problems.
I see no need in a 64bit Version of GuitarRig3 for I see no benefit in it. It all runs well as it is in my environment.

But I do need drivers for the RigControl ! Thats a shame, that you not even get a driver just for the sake of controling you rig. That is the main purpose I got the control edition.

 

One possible benefit of a 64 bit version

I use a 64 bit version of Sonar on Vista x64. Guitar Rig 3 works perfectly in standalone mode and inside of 32 bit hosts like Ableton, but I'm getting audio dropouts using GR3 in Sonar. I'm also noticing Bitbridge (the part of Sonar 64 that allows you to use 32 bit plugins) using a ton of memory if the GR3 plugin is not bypassed.

BTW, if Microsoft had chosen to make Vista only 64 bit, there would have been Windows users at the campus in Redmond with pitchforks. Vista has an improved audio model, vendors didn't update their drivers, people got mad at MSFT. They upgraded the video model, vendors didn't update their drivers, people got mad at MSFT. Products like GR3 wouldn't work at all if it wasn't for WOW64 (64->32 bit compatibility).

 

Dumb-de-dumb dumb dumb! The problem wasn't GR3, or Bitbridge, or Sonar. It was some memory resident portion of "Band in a Box"...which I installed yesterday. Some engineer I am!

This part, not dumb .

 

"BTW, if Microsoft had chosen to make Vista only 64 bit, there would have been Windows users at the campus in Redmond with pitchforks."

No, there would have been Windows users at home, with XP. Which is largely how it turned out anyway.

In any event, I've got x64 working OK now - even with Ableton. It was just a matter of fiddling with Compatibility Mode settings.

 

My GR3 (software only) runs in Cubase 4 64 bit through the 32 bridge. It works well (running 1 of the quad 6600 processors).
(Wish only that Battery 3 would run also like that and Kontakt 3 would run without the odd hick ups and stalls.)

 

Links to back any of that up? I hear lots of anecdotal evidence for how bad Vista is selling, but I've seen no facts. At any rate, the number 1 complaint about Vista has been backwards compatibility issues. I fail to see how creating more backwards compatibility issues would have made any sense.

BTW, I never touched any compatibility settings for my copy of Ableton and it has worked fine (except for sometimes disabling aero).

 

Just wanted to point out this post to you:

http://www.native-instruments.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72828

 

I think 64bit is becoming more important.

The upcoming Intel quad-core I7 cpu's coupled with vista 64bit maybe powerful enough to be worth the extra effort to port everything worth porting to 64bit.

The only downside I see is youtube doesn't work thats more to do with flash having no 64bit support.

I've tested Audacity in 64bit Linux and theres definately a performance increase under 64bit.

I'm hoping that the current implementation will be compatible with windows 7 which is the os I'm most likely to try (and possibly move over to).

By that time solid-state hard drives will be fully supported by windows and so we should have monstrous DAW processing power!

 

Hi Thomas, can you confirm or deny performance increases with GR3.2 running in 64bit compared to 32bit?

Is audio quality further enhanced in 64bit version?

That's probably all most people need/want to know about this update which in turn will affect 64bit uptake (including myself).

Thanks in advance.

 

Sorry to burst the 64bit bubble in that regard. There are no 64bit algorithms in Guitar Rig - there would be no advantage over 32bit floating point that any sentient being could perceive - so there is no reason why it would run faster on a 64-bit system.

You also won't come in a situation where GR would want to allocate more gigabytes of RAM than a 32bit system can already handle.

It's really all about 64bit compatibility in this update.

 

"Links to back any of that up? I hear lots of anecdotal evidence for how bad Vista is selling, but I've seen no facts."

I could link to any of a number of enterprise-scale institutions whose IT departments opted to forego Vista. Here at Yale University for instance, thousands upon thousands of sales were forfeited because it was obvious that the upgrade path was a poor return on investment. Microsoft themselves have essentially owned up to the fact that Vista was a stopgap between XP and Windows 7. These facts are all over the web in industry news items, if you care to Google. (Personal sales is a whole different ballgame, where, for the most part, consumers respond to marketing, availability, and then basically take what OEMs will provide.)

"At any rate, the number 1 complaint about Vista has been backwards compatibility issues. I fail to see how creating more backwards compatibility issues would have made any sense."

The idea is to sell a new and progressive product into channels that have a reason to move forward, and continue to support the tried and true for those that don't. MS created a gray area with a product (Vista 32) that a) had significant compatibility issues of its own, b) wasn't progressive vs XP in any essential way, and (worst of all) c) distracted consumers and manufacturers from the necessity of overcoming compatibility issues with Vista 64. It basically created a comfortable, pointless stalemate.

If you don't follow my logic, that's fine, but you'll notice MS is moving on.

 

I folllow your logic, I just disagree with it.

If there had been no 32 bit WOW then even more folks would have had compatibility issues. Even lots of folks who have had positive Vista experiences would have been forced to use XP. Plenty of vendors had no Vista drivers at all at RTM and many still have no x64 drivers. Many VST plugins and other types of software are also only available in 32bit flavors. Upgrading some software to support the x64 instruction set can be non-trivial and requires specialized skill sets.

You are suggesting that "we are 100% x64 and have given up on 32 bit compatiblity" would have been a selling point for folks like Yale. I have no experience with that org, but I beg to differ if you're trying to apply that to the industry as a whole. If anything, my experience as a LOB developer tells me that there are lots of enterprise customers with huge investments in applications what won't work in x64 and won't be easily portable.
Lots of enterprise customers also have hardware that's perfectly useful for knowledge workers, but which doesn't support x64.
These customers aren't going to throw away those investments over night because 64 bit computing is the future. Several of my colleagues have worked on XP migrations even as recently as two years ago. That's migrations TO XP from Win2K.

You've made a lot of unsubstantiated assertions that I won't directly address point by point, but I will say it's silly for anyone to argue that Vista had no progressive features. Windows 7 is an improved version of Vista. The new driver models, the new security model, the new modularity of the OS, etc. all came as a part of the upgrade to Vista. Windows 7 rocks in my limited usage, but the awesomeness is built on the shoulders of Vista. Lots of pundits and internet know it alls will argue that Win7 is brand new and has nothing whatsoever to do with Vista. Those people should read some articles on Technet or MSDN. You can find all sorts of ideas with a google search, it's important to keep in mind the source.

I'm personally going to have to install Sonar 32 bit today because of plugin problems. If it wasn't for WoW, I'd have to install XP.

p.s. I'm running Windows 7 32bit on one of my laptops as we speak. It rocks.

 

I typed up a nice reply, but somehow lost it, so I'll be brief. I follow your logic, but I disagree with it.

You'd be surprised to find out how many enterprise customers have just migrated to XP in the last few years. I worked for MSFT services for years and had colleagues assisting customers with migrations TO XP even as recently as two years ago. Many of these customers support legacy applications, sometimes from small vendors or even vendors who are no longer in business. Some customers have hardware investments that are perfectly useful for knowledge workers, but which does not support x64. The idea that these customers would have been quicker to adopt Vista if it supported even less of these applications and less of their hardware doesn't fly with that experience. WoW (the feature of windows x64 that supports x86 apps) was very important to many of Microsoft's customers and they worked very closely with many of them on it's implementation and testing.

The idea that Vista is just a stop gap with no progressive features is very popular and also very much uninformed. Vista included many great features which are investments for the future of the platform; new driver models, new security models, new modularity of the kernel, etc. Unfortunately for Microsoft, a lot of these advances aren't the type of things that are going to sell an upgrade in the short term. Windows 7 is great, I'm really enjoying running the 32 bit version on an old laptop I had laying around. That greatness is built on the progress made with Vista.

I'm quite familiar with google; familiar enough to realize that not everything that pundits or bloggers say is actually based on fact. I remember reading lots of articles about MinWin being the basis for Windows 7, which was never true. I'd hardily recommend that some of the folks arguing that Microsoft is moving on from Vista take some time and read some articles on TechNet or MSDN rather than googling randomly or reading articles written by journalists who have never compiled a line of code. Or maybe, just take a look at the build number for Windows 7.

The funny thing is, now some pundits are arguing that Win7 should be free since it's really just a minor Vista upgrade. I'd provide a link, but I'll let you google.
---
BTW, I'm going to install Sonar 32 bit on my machine today as I'm having trouble with some VST plugins. I'm very grateful for WoW, or else I'd be installing XP instead of just an application.

 

This is all valid, but it does nothing to change my mind. It doesn't seem like you're arguing against my point at all. The progress made by Vista could just as well have been made without the schism between 32 and 64 bit versions. Of course there would have been quantifiable differences in sales, but that never was my point. The bottom line is that the differentiation slowed development of 64-bit applications and drivers considerably, and unnecessarily, given the installed base of 64-bit CPUs (most of which were sold inside computers bundled with 32-bit copies of Vista, sadly.)

And more sadly, MS is making the same mistake all over again, shipping both 32 and 64-bit versions of Windows 7. Hopefully the emphasis will be placed squarely on the 64 bit version this time. Otherwise we will have another year of lousy support for devices and applications, and people intentionally underusing their CPUs in order to stick safely with the least-common-denominator OS.