EVE General Discussion

Unlikely software written for Windows XP wont run on Windows 7 or 8, it can happen but it's very unlikely.

You will not be able to run 16 bit application on any 64 bit system running windows, it not possible to truncate 64 bit registers below 32 bit, which means you can't run programs written for win 3.11 or dos.

That's what I said, didn't I?

Always nice to read comments made by people with no understanding in IT.

Quoted for truth.

I do agree with some contributors it would be a nicety but it is an optional extra rather than a requirement. Plus it would have very little benefit to a large amount of the userbase and if it did go 64 bit native - would that reduce the userbase and potentially alienate customers who can't afford an upgrade? Plus dev time to maintain the new 64 bit version.

After reading this thread the brain has started to hurt. There is different sorts of threading such as course or fine; not that 64 bit is needed for that. Doesn't make sense to why a 64bit client would be needed beyond needing to address >2GB or >3GB (if you have 1GB kernel space reserved via boot.ini switch ) even then PAE has existed on 32 bit processors for ages. Heck even Windows 2000 Server had it for addressing more than 4GB on 32bit systems... Disabled in 32 bit Windows XP, Vista and 7 but it can be enabled on 7 32bit (at a small performance cost).

As for DX11 it doesn't require 64bit at all, plus with different types of threading Eve CAN be improved but considering the performance of the client already not sure it would really be worth it.

I understand large battles may push the client to 1.8GB~ footprint or above but please remember not everything loaded in memory is addressed at the same time, some data not in use is put into swap (if not sent for garbage collection or not used or reused or leaked). For really really large battles I can see why people would push for something that can handle more; however it would only be a bottleneck if userland was out of memory plus the swap - over simplifying here but that is the general idea. Windows XP and above are very good at caching data too. There are problems with >2GB where the hard disk gets thrashed by the swap in certain situations which can cause crashing however that can be optimised under 32 bit to mitigate that.

It depends more on what your code looks like, how many cores and how many pipeline stages your processor has if you really want specific improvements to the performance of Eve. What processor extensions can the code exploit or take advantage of? Never seen the source code of Eve so can't comment on that. The main valid point from the educated posters "you CAN but why would you want to?" or "you COULD but at what benefit?" rings true.

Changing the game binaries at a core level to optimise them for 64 bit also carries risks. How would you know it is optimised properly? User testing? What about compiler bugs (which do happen)? Would this cause more bugs as it is effective changing how the code runs / works? How would the new code / compiler output interact with existing components? Changing code at a low level runs the risks of bugs / regressions / errors. Trust me if you have ever worked with ReactOS or seen the regression on how one line of exact same code compiles differently on 64 bit than 32 bit and can change the output of a variable or function. *Shudder* Even with user / regression testing with the most ideal white box unit testing problems can always creep through.

Just 2c. Understand where a lot of people are coming from regarding large battles, 64 bit is not the be all, end all solution to every problem with performance. Considering what Eve is I'ld say it is already highly optimised, yeah sure it can always be improved true; however massive jumps in lower level code or compiler changes are never a good solution to the problems.

Without logs and crash dumps then I can't comment. Have you filed bug reports when this happens? That would enable us to look at the problem.

8bits was enough for Jet Set Willy and Elite.

Professionally, I work with gigabyte(s) sized files and databases in machines that have bounds in the 128GB of RAM
This August will mark my 10th year doing so * added so you understand how long ago 64bits has been main stream for the back end stuff even though 32 bits is enough for users.

Was good to read some of the comments here for a dose of reality :-/

Good is a subjective measure.

If it does what they need and does it when they need it done, isn't that "good" enough?

If I don't get a 64-bit client NOW, I'm quitting EVE forever.. taking my 34641067783 alts with me!! Lost money might force them to give me my 64-bit client!!!!!!!!


/end sarcasm


The people talking about "lack of understanding of technology" are correct. Others are merely cutting and pasting stuff from google searches.

How 'bout a Linux client?

*warps off to a safe distance*

That, and there are ways and tools to assign cores to a process if you really need to crank up the performance to a near-obsessive level (nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong heh heh heh).

For most people, a good GPU should do the job regardless of whether you're on dual or 8-core system, assuming you got the 4GB RAM done and your disk in good condition (ie: not fragmented). Also, if you can have your game on a physical disk (not partition) other than the one holding your operating system performance gains a lot.

So in short, while I 'd love a 64-bit client, it's still not really *necessary*. Odds generally are that, if you know exactly why you'd like a 64-bit client, you should be able to figure out how to hand-tweak it and your PC to run that much smoother.

(Nah, ain't tweaked mine. Runs sweet on linux + crossover with a proper 8-core system.)