Corel X4 64 Bits

Is there going to have Corel X4 in 64 Bits?

21 Replies - Latest Reply

  • CorelDRAW Graphics Suite X4 that was announced last week is a 32bit application. It has been tested fully on Windows XP and Windows Vista 64 bit. There has been no announcement regarding a 64-bit version of CorelDRAW.


  • In reply to Gerard Metrailler:

    will be there a 64 bits version?

  • In reply to lordtec:

    Corel has not said one way or the other on a 64-bit version. But given that
    so few users run a 64-bit OS, I wouldn't hold your breath. It would require
    a lot of programming work for Corel and there would be very few sales in
  • In reply to FosterCoburn:

    With CPUs being 64-bit for a while now (I think even the old Xeons were all 64-bit capeable for 3+ years now) and with RAM prices so low, I would like to see a 64-bit X5 in a couple years. I'd also like to see continuing optimization of any and all functions that can support multicores.

    On the other hand, with the latest quadcore, I'm finding even still in a ram-limited 32-bit world, X3 is really fast :)

  • In reply to Island:


    I have two machines with 64-bit processors. I own copies of 64-bit Windows.
    The problem is finding drivers so I haven't even considered installing the
    64-bit Windows.

    The problem is not that users don't have 64-bit processors. It is that so
    few are running a 64-bit version of Windows. If I had to guess, it would be
    something like 1-2% of users. So should Corel blow all the money available
    for an upgrade on ONE feature (64-bit) that affects so few people?
  • In reply to FosterCoburn:

    They must have said the same thing going from 16-bit to 32-bit... once they do it, within the next generation it will (I believe) mean a performance boost for everyone (if there isn't a performance advantage from going 64-bit, why has Intel designed their CPUs all 64-bit capeable now instead of leaving them at 32-bit?)

    A real chicken or the egg problem with 4 things that need to come at the same time for the user: CPUs (which we've had for 3-4 years now) OS (XP 64-bit wasn't advertised very much, but there seems to be more adoption of Vista 64-bit where people are building powerful machines and want more than 4 GB of memory; maybe it will be the next OS though that really takes off...) Software (not really any yet; even the adobe apps, photoshop and indesign, are't 64-bit yet, are they?) and Drivers (again not available yet as you say for many RIPs, printers, etc.)

    I imagine the driver people are saying the same thing -- why provide printer or scanner drivers until people are running it. And people can't run it until the drivers exist and the software exists. A tricky one, since there will have to be overlap between 32-bit and 64-bit versions since not everyone will be able to upgrade their OS at once, and yet I would guess, everyone will at some point in the future.

    Since I don't have EFI Fiery drivers avaialble for 64-bit yet, I'm actually glad that Corel didn't spend the resources to do X4 as 64-bit.And it's pretty darn fast on my new CPU as-is. 

    But in two more years when I presume X5 will come out, I can't help but wonder if X5 shouldn't have a 64-bit version. Carrying around a camrea with 8 GB of memory now and who knows what then, and even now with a motherboard with 6 of 8 memory slots open, 64 GB capeable but only able to utilize 4 GB due to the 32-bit os limitation, will I still be happy in two years using only a fraction of the resources available?

    I imagine two years from now I'll want to have a lot more things go from "fast" to "instant." Instead of a printer spool on disk to spool out a 500 MB print job it will go instantly to a ram drive. WIth 16 or 32 GB of memory, every corel file I'll work on in a day could be cached for not only quick but instant access for either opening or saving (with the file saved to disk in the background).

    For this 32-bit system I just spent the big bucks for an 8-drive raid-10 system which works awesome (I can save a 2 GB corel file in 40 seconds now that used to take over 5 minutes on my previous system) but I think system RAM will be more versitile and less expensive to accomplish even faster responiveness two years down the road.

  • In reply to Island:

    I have one box with Vista 64. XP 64 was a nightmare because it was even harder to find drivers for it.Vista 64 bit, not quite so bad. The driver problem is actually caused by Microsoft, as kernal mode drivers not only require code signing (which can't be done with a standard certificate), but they must also pass some pretty tough tests through MS Labs, which can take some time. This is not the case on 32 Bit Vista. If Microsoft had the same developer requirements on Vista 64 as they do on Vista 32 (which is secure enough in my opinion), I think you would see a wider adaptation of the OS and more apps written for it.

  • In reply to Island:


    This wasn't an issue with 16-bit migrating to 32-bit as far as when to do
    it. Once again, people had 32-bit processors before they ran a 32-bit
    operating system. Microsoft came out with Windows 95 and that was a very
    sudden push to a 32-bit (sort of) operating system. Corel thus released
    CorelDRAW 6 on the exact same day as Windows 95.

    What did we get? CorelDRAW 6 was the worst version ever released. The code
    available on day one was a complete disaster that would crash and corrupt
    most any file. It would ONLY run on Windows 95 so sales were absolutely

    I doubt you'll even see a 64-bit version on X5. Users just aren't moving to
    64-bit operating systems and this would be a huge undertaking for Corel. I
    doubt it would bring much of a performance benefit.

    Keep in mind there are a large number of users still using CorelDRAW 5
    simply because it was the last version that ran on Windows 3.1 and that is
    the last version of Windows with drivers for their devices.
  • In reply to FosterCoburn:

    There was a good reason to move from 16 bits to 32 bits. It vastly improved speed, added resolution, made it easier to manage memory, and so much more. There wouldn't be that much difference going to 64 bits. CorelDraw doesn't need any extra resolution for 64-bitness to help. I can't think of any ways that having larger memory space or objects would make CorelDraw run any faster or work any better.

    There are some downsides to using 64 bits, BTW. The extra bits mean that you have to use 2x as much memory to store a single number or CPU instruction. The only time going to extra bitness helps is when you need more resolution or larger chunks of memory than what can be defined by a 32-bit word, so the code has to break the elements down into smaller 32-bit chunks and merge the results together. If moving to a larger word size eliminates all of this extra work, only then does it make the code faster. Otherwise, the extra memory 64-bitness requires would actually slow things down.

    64-bitness helps with really huge databases, like for example Google's database - nothing you and I are going to have on our computers any time in the next 10 years - and with 3D calculations. It doesn't do that much for something like CorelDraw. 

    • Two to the 16th power is not very big: 65536, so you can see why there is a big difference between 16 bits and 32 bits.
    • Two to the 32nd power is already a very big number: 4,294,967,296. I think you would die of old age before you could create a drawing with 4 billion objects in it, or run the computer out of memory, whichever comes first.
    • Two to the 64th power is hugely big number 18,446,744,073,709,551,616

    If you are running a 64-bit OS, you already get an advantage in memory management handled by Windows itself, even running 32-bit apps.

  • In reply to geewhizbang:

    While CorelDraw 6.0 wasn't very stable when it was first released, there were people (like me) that needed the 32-bitness really bad. I was using CorelDraw to make illustrations that were bringing Draw 5.0 to its knees. I had to import CAD drawings with several thousand nodes for simplification into assembly drawings, and Draw 5.0 would just crash. CorelDraw 6.0 could handle these fairly easily, probably because the 32-bit address space eliminated memory segmentation.

    Version 6.0 also added vitally needed scripting for the project I did at that time.

    So I put up with the flakey behavior. Version 5.0 was a very refined release of the original code base, but version 6.0 ran about 4x faster on large drawings. It also had vastly superior resolution.

    Nothing on Win9x was very stable at the time BTW. Winword crashed just about as often as CorelDraw did.

    There were earlier versions of Draw were pretty lame too. Versions 3 & 4 were slow and very buggy. I stuck with version 2.0 until 5.0 came out. I bought each of the upgrades, but stuck with 2.0 because it ran better than the 3 & 4.

  • In reply to geewhizbang:

     I'd love to see X5 be a true 64 bit application.

  • I think the problem with drivers on 64 bit OS is a bit overrated. Yes, the old PCs with old hardware would probably have a problem. But I don't think any modern device would have no 64 bit drivers. I'm running 64 bit OS at work and at home and have no issues with any hardware I have. On XP x64 I did have problem with my old video capture card. I did keep a 32 bit OS for that rare occasion I needed to use it. However after upgrading to Vista x64 even that was taken care of since Vista recognized that piece of... <hardware>.

    And don't forget that on x64 CPU there are twice as many general purpose registers and twice as many XMM registers, which means more data can be kept in registers and out of memory which significantly boosts performance. Also x64 CPU all have at least SSE2 instructions. Moving to x64 platform means that SSE2 (at least) will be guaranteed to be there. This could be a big performnce improvement.

    And having more than 2GB or RAM available to application is a good enough reason to switch to 64 bit platform. x64 also provides a different (much faster) way of exception handling, so entering/exiting try...catch block will have no impact on performance.

    Now, having said that, CorelDRAW is a huge application with a lot of code which has been written long time ago. Making everything compile and work on 64 bit platform would be a significant effort and will take away from developing new features. Is there a market demand to stall development and focus on porting the application to 64 bit platform? Would you buy x64 version of CorelDRAW which has no new features since last release (x86) yet pay the full upgrade price? Most people wouldn't.

    I would personally LOVE to see as many native x64 applications on the market as possible as I'm 64 bit freak myself. (By the way, I'm happy to see 64 bit shell extension in CorelDRAW X4). And I would love to have something like Flash plugin for my x64 IE browser but "for some reason" Adobe is not releasing one... I wonder why :)

  • In reply to alexv1n:

    The background issue here is driver signing being mandatory for 64bits. Here are a few reading that will give you something to think about...


    The thrid part in the below is well worth the time... 


    What Peter Gutmann thinks of (part 3) Vista DRM 


    And in simple terms... 


  • In reply to Yani:

     Does the X5 version be 64-bit?

    When the corel release version X5?

  • In reply to lordtec:

    I doubt that Corel or any other vendor will bring out 64 bit products
    until 64 bit represents more than 0.05% of the market!

    As for X5, it is at least two years away judging by past releases.
    Software companies are in the business of making money, not bringing out
    new releases solely for the sake of bringing out new releases.

    lordtec wrote:
    > Does the X5 version be 64-bit?
    > When the corel release version X5?
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------