reg.exe + Vista 64 = fail?

JAST Games Windows Compatibility
#1

I’m not too sure on this, still testing it out, but I don’t think eroge that have reg.exe as a startup file work with 64-bit Vista installs. That includes games that claim they work on Vista - because they mean the 32-bit install.

Just ran into this problem while attempting to run my Prism Ark DVD (Vista updated version no less). Works my old XP machine, but not the Vista Ultimate. Did a check on Japanese boards, and it seems happens with certain brands.

Anyone else ever run into something like this… or rather, does anyone else have a 64-bit Vista install? :frowning:

[ 12-28-2007, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]

#2

Got the patch: no joy with reg.exe

From the whitepage document, it has something to do with the program inspecting the registry, but the registry line has an invalid (read: asian font) character that the Vista 64bit can not recognize.

Thus an official warning to erogers: 64-bit Vista is not safe for the hobby… at least until Microsoft makes a better patch.

#3

well i would argue that any 64-bit OS is not suitable for any sort of erogaming period; our games are not 64-bit supported either as peter have stated many times

#4

But if you’re not relying on 16-bit subsystems or installers than everything should be ducky. A fair whack of the compatibility problems users report on 64-bit systems stem programs which use 16-bit installers or 16-bit memory addressing.

Vista 64 has a 32-bit subsystem (wow32) for application support, but doesn’t contain a 16-bit one. Vista 32 (as well as Windows XP) are 32-bit native, but contain a 16-bit subsystem (dubbed WoW for Windows on Windows) to run applications designed for Windows 95 and lower.

In order to combat this, Vista 64 has a set of registry keys which are intended to point 16-bit installers toward 32-bit equivalents on-the-fly. They’ve covered the most common ones, but some companies made 16-bit proprietary installers for their applications. These will fail to function in 64-bit Windows.

And that’s your technobabble for the day!

#5

LOL! :cool:

I think the easy answer for 64bit Vista, is just use Virtual PC and have a 32bit XP instance installed.

Fortunately Virtual PC is free… unfortunately you still need to by a license of XP… or just use an old one not being used.

Since most people (such as myself) use 64bit Vista for the greater memory support, rigs with it should be able to handle the virtual environment.

Still… suckage on Microsoft for being half-assed on the 64bit technology and not supporting 16bit native. Lazy and sloppy. :mad:

#6

Any chance of compiling a list of translated eroges that rely on 16-bit subsystems, installers and/or reg.exe?

I’m running 64bit Vista and I’m sure I’m not alone with Nargrakhan so a list would be very helpful for a lot of people.

#7

It’s not even 32-bit native. I think they did this to eliminate OS confusion with programs trying to address memory directly. In example if a 32 bit program tried to reference 0xDEADBEEF (my favorite memory address – perfectly valid, too) in a 64 bit environment is the OS supposed to read that as 0xDEADBEEF00000000 or 0x00000000DEADBEEF? You’d essentially have to quarantine the first 4,294,967,295 bytes of memory as 32bit exclusive access memory to prevent programs from stepping on each other. Then you’ve negated the use of having a 64-bit OS in the first place since only memory ABOVE the first 4gb could be addressed by 64-bit programs.

16-bit native would be even worse since the memory addressing would look like 0xBEEF and therefore there are even MORE possibilities for error in the 64-bit spectrum.

To address this problem, the WoW subsystem executes as a 64-bit application and therefore is properly allocating memory space. The only question I have is why didn’t they include WoW16 in the 64-bit OS? Maybe because they’d have a subsystem running a subsystem?

BTW: The 4gb cap is inclusive of your total video memory as well. So it’s your physical memory minus your video memory as addressable space. Don’t… don’t ask why the OS subtracts your video memory from the physical memory, I have no idea why this is done unless they absolutely MUST be able to address it as regular memory (Why, God? WHY?!).

[ 01-01-2008, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Raigan ]

#8

Again: MS being lazy and sloppy.

It’s their job to make the OS do the things it needs to do “under the hood” so that we USERS have an easier time. That’s the whole point of Windows: to make using computers easy. That’s why we pay $500+ per copy for a plastic coaster.

If MS had to waste a few more months on making it work like it should (i.e. be backwards compatible so old software will work like it should), then they should have wasted a few months. Obviously they didn’t, because it was going to hurt the profit margins. So there’s no excuse for it: MS did some cuts to save time and money.

Thus the answer is lazy and sloppy. :wink:

If leaving XP means that 16-bit and 32-bit software won’t work, then MS has given a reason why people shouldn’t leave XP… which is something they DON’T want people to do, because they keep claiming Vista can do everything XP can and more. Well obviously it can’t, or else I’d be watching 2D twincest getting it on, instead of a reg.exe error. :stuck_out_tongue:

[ 01-02-2008, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]

#9

Well XP 64-bit edition has the same problems and a few more because it was even less common than Vista 64. The 32-bit flavor of Vista has the 16-bit software compatibility so unless you have the need for the 64-bit version, large physical memory support, I’d just use the 32-bit edition. Or XP, which still vastly outperforms Vista anyways (but does not have, nor will it ever have, DX10 support).

I personally run the 64 bit edition simply because my two video cards combined have 1.5gb video memory, which takes a nasty bite out of my available system memory.

#10

Two words: Supreme Commander

:wink:

Gaming is moving to the 64bit side of the pond, since it allows for more memory support. And since your “big boys” want to match or outdo the PS3 type graphics (Devil May Cry 3 for example), you need that bitch’in power.

I mean I can run eroge 16-bit junk on the virtual environment… but considering that Vista 64bit costs as much as it does, there should be universal support.

You don’t see the “sales ads” claiming: VISTA 64bit - for all your needs… except 16bit applications, then you’re screwed. :stuck_out_tongue:

#11

Er… I’m guessing you meant Devil May Cry 4. But, I digress. It’s true, it’s extremely frustrating when something doesn’t work right that did on the old OS. If you don’t need 3D acceleration, then use VPC since it’s free.

Otherwise, I recommend using VMWare Player since it is also free and supports Direct 3d. I’ve gotten D3D 8 to work properly, D3D 9 goes into super seizure (mad flickering) mode.

It’s not only lazy that it’s not supporting old applications, it’s idiotic. But moreso IMHO is that a very large percentage of companies are simply pretending that 64-bit operating systems don’t exist. Economically, it’s understandable since they don’t want to spend extra money testing a 64-bit version of the same software that a much smaller user base will use.

What IS difficult to understand is why these same companies then continue to rely on 16-bit technology that has been depreciated for years! How long has it been since the Athlon 64 processor came out? How about windows xp 64-bit edition? 2003 and 2005, respectively according to wikipedia. So the instruction sets have been available for nearly 5 years and a Windows base for nearly 3. But because Windows 64 wasn’t usually installed by default, the software companies got away with largely ignoring the issue altogether. Now that Vista is coming with 32-bit and 64-bit versions and a lot more computers have the 64-bit version pre-installed (my HP laptop had Vista Ultimate 64 pre-installed on it) they’re scrambling to get some means of support in place.

Others continue to ignore the issue (Gametap) and still more are convincing users that they don’t need/want a 64-bit os and they should shell out extra money to downgrade to regular old XP (or dual-boot their machines and therefore decrease stability). Problem is that they’ll continue to use these tactics until someone forces the issue. Back when Windows XP was released, a lot of companies didn’t want to make software for it and tried to convince people not to switch from Windows 98 or ME (Which I usually call Memory-leak Edition). Microsoft eventually cut off supplies of Windows 98 to OEM users and basically told the software companies to deal with it. Unfortunately, they’ve kind of buckled with Vista and are still supplying large quantities of XP to OEM manufacturers. Basically Vista software won’t improve/be widely adopted without MS making the next move.

Okay, I’m off my soapbox. Time to play some Snow Sakura or something.

#12

Yea. :o

VPC is free, but not a license for another OS to run on VPC. You have to pay for that.

I can partially answer that: experience with the older software. It’s like 8bit days of the NES, when the 16bit SNES came out - there were awesome titles, with great sprite graphics and music quality for the NES… because by then, programmers and artists knew how to really use the system.

Same goes with PC software. After so many years of working with the 16bit and 32bit architectures, software developers can really squeeze performance out of them. Sure it can be done on 64bit, but that requires more R&D costs – which drives the price of the software up for customers. And sometimes the customer won’t upgrade if the old stuff works fine. Basically: why run software on 64bit when it does the same thing for MUCH CHEAPER at 16 or 32 format? Newer and faster isn’t always better. For gaming sure… but database programs? Feh… Don’t forget the user base either: retraining clients and admins on the new format is not cost effective. For each hour you spend teaching them the new stuff, that’s an hour not being used for production work.

That’s because when MS did that with the 98 generation, they got slapped with Monopoly lawsuits. They can’t afford to do that anymore, because MS is already in the spotlight. The EU has already ruled them a Monopoly, and the US is still being debated. It’s not unfortunate: MS should not have that kind of influence. Let the CUSTOMER decide – not the bankers and investors for Bill Gates. Or perhaps it is unfortunate… because maybe MS needs to be broken up. :stuck_out_tongue:

[ 01-02-2008, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Nargrakhan ]

#13

Heck if MS really wanted total backward Compatibility they should have liscensed and included DosBox with Vista too :stuck_out_tongue:

#14

True. I think they may be trying to get away from supporting legacy stuff. I can see that being costly. Even though MS has an awful lot of bling, they wouldn’t want to cut into their bottom lines.

Some sort of virtualization is probably the best (safest, not most compatible) option for Narg and anyone else wanting to run legacy apps on 64-bit Windows. If you have a legacy app that absolutely MUST have 3d acceleration (Gametap, for me), I recommend dual booting. It’s not hard to set up, but you’ll have to back up your important stuff. Messing with bootloaders is not without risk.

Oh, one piece of advice if you’re going to do that. Download an burn a Gentoo linux live cd. I can’t tell you how many times its let me recover from irritating partition screw-ups.

#15

[quote]
Originally posted by Nargrakhan:
[b]VISTA 64bit - for all your needs… except 16bit applications, then you’re screwed :o :wink: … ) grasped the technobabble, but a thing still eludes me: if WinXP is still available, does it mean that even the Japanese Vista system(s) share(s) the same problems?

#16

Yeah, it’s a pretty low level design decision, so even the localized versions should share the same issues.

#17

It certainly exists in the Chinese version:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942309/zh-tw

The Japanese tech support page, redirects to the English one.

#18

[color=#BF0000]Update!! Update!! Update!![/color]

Many titles from PajamasSoft and Cyberworks (especially the new ones), use the Reg.exe file. Therefore they will NOT work on a Vista64 install.

[list] * PajamasSoft
http://www2.pajamas.ne.jp

Will add more companies as I find them.

#19

Well shit… It seems Anim might be on the list. Their newest train molester title - ??? - does not work on Vista64 installs. The game start execution file has a copy protection, that Vista64 crashes on:

http://www.hs-crowd.co.jp/anim/product/ … ikan3.html

I have ??? on preorder, so when I get it, I’ll be able to see if it shares the protection. If so, then its bad news: protection is good, but not when it throws off your OS with a legit copy. I wonder if the rest of Crowd is going to follow suit? :expressionless:

#20

I’ve learned that the lcsebody.exe does not execute properly in Vista64. That covers any titles that run under the LC-ScriptEngine.

Off the top of my head, that means titles from Liquid should not work, so add another to the list… :frowning:

[list]* Liquid
http://www.tactics.ne.jp/~liquid[/list]