Stardock Forums
I had to remove 6.3 from my Windows XP 64 bit system, screwed up my toolbars, 100% cpu usage and visual studio crashes. Everything was fine until this release must have introduced a bug.
Please be a bit more specific:
Neil has posted on another thread that 6.3 does not support 64 bit XP, 6.2 does.
I did check for that on the WB website, but it didn't tell me that. I had feeling it had something to do with the update 
Installed via Stardock, SP2, 4 gb of ram, 6400 @ 213GHz. And 64 bit is supported, it states it on the Web Site, I have been running it for 1 year on this system and the problem just started with this release. It is consumming tons of processor resources.
Why would a new release not be backwards compatable
From Neil Banfield, WB Dev., on WB 6.3 Support thread.
Actually if you read that you will see it says Vista 32 or 64 bit. Not XP. When we added the ability to run on 64 bit XP in 6.1 we were clear that it was unsupported.
We are looking into making the installer install 6.2 on XP 64 bit instead of the 6.3 files.
Neil, "XP" means all versions of XP are supported, just as "2003" means all versions of server 2003 are supported (so, including 64 bit versons of the OS'es)
Nope, since 32 and 64 bit are specified for Vista, not being specified for XP means no 64 bit support, if 64 bit was not specified for Vista then your argument would/could hold true.
It is called semantics.
You might be right, but it is just not clear and as such just not fair to the potential customer. I lost count on how many times I had to write emails to Software-developers and ask them "If you say 'Vista', do you mean both 32bit and 64bit?" (The habit of not clearly defining the OS required was especially frequent during the first year after the Vista release, and has improved since then). Some answered with "yes we mean both" other said "we mean only 32bit".
I can easly see how one would think that 'XP' means both versions, especially when the software in question also supports the 64bit version of Vista.
I would suggest to change the description of WB to make it clear that the newer versions only support 32bit XP.
I had the same problem when I got an HP Vista Ultimate x64 laptop, they didn't specify in the specs (on CircuitCity's site) or on the box itself. When I booted it up and found out it was x64, I was pissed (apparently HP doesn't even offer Ultimate x32). I ended up taking it back and sent in a complaint to the CircuitCity site for lack of specification. Soon after, they started specifying if a product was x32/x64.
This might be changed to:
As to further clairify XP 64bit's exclusion from the current supported OS's.
But yes I did read it as it was intended, with a non inclusion of the 32/64 bit terms like Vista has, I understood it as only the standard XP (32bit) was supported.
The problem isn't about what is intended to mean, it's more about not writing it down properly.
I found out 6.3 dropped support for XP x64 systems, the hard way, I think that's just dumb software developers aren't able to properly write down the OSes their product supports.
Frankly, I think the "dropped support" on XP x64 is just a bug Stardock isn't able to overcome, or got them by surprise after release. Stardock added support for XP x64 specifically in update 6.01, and now suddenly drops support without informing it's users or even mentioning in the update history? Don't think so. I hope Stardock either get this bug sorted out quickly or updates impuls to install version 6.2 (still waiting for that!!).
From the Stardock Central blurb on WB6:
"Includes support for per-pixel alpha-blended skinning on Windows XP and Windows Vista (32-bit and 64-bit support for both platforms). WDDM drivers are strongly recommended for Windows Vista."
Try and talk your way out of that, Neil.
We're paying customers, you took away a working product. I had no problems with 6.2, but I try to keep all my software updated, guess I'll be regretting that decision.
As I have said elsewhere, the plan is to upate the 6.3 installer to install 6.2 on 64 bit XP. Until this happens you can contact support who should be able to provide you with 6.2 and you should have all your existing features back.
Being able to run on 64 bit XP was something that was added based on user feedback last year. At the time it was made clear that we would not provide support for this and it was the end of the line for 64 bit XP and the trial of WB will not install on 64 bit XP.
This particular issue happened because we no longer test on XP 64 bit as it is not a supported platform. Part of the reason for the removal of support for 64 bit XP is due to the increased testing it requires which has been well in excess of the benefits we get from supporting this platform for a very long time.
As for the blurb in SDC, I suspect someone got carried away and copied the text from WB 5.5 (which did support those OSes) and didn't notice their error. I have passed it onto the right people so they can correct it.
I should also point out that XP means XP 32 bit when it is listed in our system requirements. XP 64 bit edition is a seperate OS and unless it is specifically mentioned in the system requirements section there is a good chance our apps will not run on it.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
WinCustomize Forums