These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Any info when eve is playable on Windows XP again?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#41 - 2011-12-05 07:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: knobber Jobbler
Jojo Jackson wrote:
Alexa Coates wrote:
why are you still using XP? Come on even schools are upgrading to 7 now.

Never touch a running system ;).

Win7 offers nothing over WinXP ... except MORE COLLORS.
I don't know a singel program, which does not work under XP except DX11 which noone need.

And it would take several DAYS for a full switch.



Xp cannot support the eve cache running on a RAM disk which is mounted on 4 of the 16g I've got , which xp also cannot support either.

Then there is security, speed, stability....

By the way, I don't think anyone is going to take advice on pc matters from someone with such poor grasp of the English language. ;)
Mirima Thurander
#42 - 2011-12-05 07:21:05 UTC
HA HA HA HA HA


you all use windows....


Why you no use Linux, like the smart people of the world.

All automated intel should be removed from the game including Instant local/jumps/kills/cynos for all systems/regions.Eve should report nothing like this to the client/3rd party software.Intel should not be force fed to players. Player skill and iniative should be the sources of intel.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2011-12-05 07:22:30 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Jojo Jackson wrote:
Alexa Coates wrote:
why are you still using XP? Come on even schools are upgrading to 7 now.

Never touch a running system ;).

Win7 offers nothing over WinXP ... except MORE COLLORS.
I don't know a singel program, which does not work under XP except DX11 which noone need.

And it would take several DAYS for a full switch.



Xp cannot support the eve cache running on a RAM disk which is mounted on 4 of the 16g I've got , which xp also cannot support either.

Then there is security, speed, stability....


Still off-topic..

Can run 10 accounts maybe even more on Win XP.. so dont know what are you doing, but you are doing it wrong.

Also security, mostly user fault
speed, XP is way faster at most things, a bit slower at some, which most people never use.
stability .. well probably most stable system i had since win2k.

*Just saying. Not that it matters. Derail of the thread seems intentional, therefore i call it Troll thread"

Lock for no content.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#44 - 2011-12-05 07:22:59 UTC
Meh… getting more than 4GB out of XP is just a matter of diking out the license limitation… Twisted
Nemesis Factor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#45 - 2011-12-05 08:22:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nemesis Factor
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:

Also security, mostly user fault

Flaws in the OS code are not the user's fault and are the most common type of exploitable weakness.

Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:

speed, XP is way faster at most things, a bit slower at some, which most people never use.

Please cite your sources because that statement is demonstrably untrue.
pcmag
hardware heaven
techradar
softpedia

Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:

stability .. well probably most stable system i had since win2k.

Of course it's the most stable thing you have had, it's the newest operating system you have tried, you dinosaur.. If you haven't even really compared the two then all of your commentary is invalid.

Some people are just stuck in their ways. Cannot be argued with and any proof presented (even in the absence of their own proof) will just be ignored. The old mentality of "if it 'aint broke, don't fix it" is a very poor choice to make. If everyone thought that way we would be stuck in the stone age.

Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:

The horse and buggy is perfectly fine. Internal combustion is just unnecessary.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2011-12-05 08:24:12 UTC
Nemesis Factor wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:

Also security, mostly user fault

Flaws in the OS code are not the user's fault and are the most common type of exploitable weakness.

Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:

speed, XP is way faster at most things, a bit slower at some, which most people never use.

Please cite your sources because that statement is demonstrably untrue.
pcmag
hardware heaven
techradar
softpedia

Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:

stability .. well probably most stable system i had since win2k.

Of course it's the most stable thing you have had, it's the newest operating system you have tried. If you haven't even really compared the two then all of your commentary is invalid.

Some people are just stuck in their ways. Cannot be argued with and any proof presented (even in the absence of their own proof) will just be ignored. The old mentality of "if it 'aint broke, don't fix it" is a very poor choice to make. If everyone thought that way we would be stuck in the stone age.


Well source, my experience. What i was doing : playing games mostly.

And if you look bit up you would know i tried every microsoft system since MS-DOS 6.22 to Windows7 which i currently use.
Nemesis Factor
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#47 - 2011-12-05 08:27:16 UTC
Well, good, it's your word vs. mine and everyone I linked up there.
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#48 - 2011-12-05 08:28:46 UTC
Nemesis Factor wrote:


Some people are just stuck in their ways. Cannot be argued with and any proof presented (even in the absence of their own proof) will just be ignored. The old mentality of "if it 'aint broke, don't fix it" is a very poor choice to make. If everyone thought that way we would be stuck in the stone age.



On the other hand, if you upgrade to a new MS OS before Service Pack 1 is out, you're taking a big risk.

Just because something's new and has new features, it doesn't mean that it's going to work as advertised.

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2011-12-05 08:29:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Nemesis Factor wrote:
Well, good, it's your word vs. mine and everyone I linked up there.


Pretty much.

Point was .. that Win XP is fully capable of running multiple clients of EVE.
Or much better choice if you dont use PC built at 2009-2011.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#50 - 2011-12-05 08:36:04 UTC
Well Windows XP is dead for support it takes a bit of work to get around the retentive 'were not updating that' status ms has on it.
Oldes OS they support atm is XP SP 1 and thats scheduled to die in... 2013 was it?

Win 7 has a few neat tools that XP would be jealous of like windows repair which actually for once fixes the darn computer software wise.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
knobber Jobbler
State War Academy
Caldari State
#51 - 2011-12-05 08:48:40 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Jojo Jackson wrote:
Alexa Coates wrote:
why are you still using XP? Come on even schools are upgrading to 7 now.

Never touch a running system ;).

Win7 offers nothing over WinXP ... except MORE COLLORS.
I don't know a singel program, which does not work under XP except DX11 which noone need.

And it would take several DAYS for a full switch.



Xp cannot support the eve cache running on a RAM disk which is mounted on 4 of the 16g I've got , which xp also cannot support either.

Then there is security, speed, stability....


Still off-topic..

Can run 10 accounts maybe even more on Win XP.. so dont know what are you doing, but you are doing it wrong.

Also security, mostly user fault
speed, XP is way faster at most things, a bit slower at some, which most people never use.
stability .. well probably most stable system i had since win2k.

*Just saying. Not that it matters. Derail of the thread seems intentional, therefore i call it Troll thread"

Lock for no content.


Failure to understanding what you're quoting is not good. I don't think I mentioned accounts.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2011-12-05 08:49:42 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Jojo Jackson wrote:
Alexa Coates wrote:
why are you still using XP? Come on even schools are upgrading to 7 now.

Never touch a running system ;).

Win7 offers nothing over WinXP ... except MORE COLLORS.
I don't know a singel program, which does not work under XP except DX11 which noone need.

And it would take several DAYS for a full switch.



Xp cannot support the eve cache running on a RAM disk which is mounted on 4 of the 16g I've got , which xp also cannot support either.

Then there is security, speed, stability....


Still off-topic..

Can run 10 accounts maybe even more on Win XP.. so dont know what are you doing, but you are doing it wrong.

Also security, mostly user fault
speed, XP is way faster at most things, a bit slower at some, which most people never use.
stability .. well probably most stable system i had since win2k.

*Just saying. Not that it matters. Derail of the thread seems intentional, therefore i call it Troll thread"

Lock for no content.


Failure to understanding what you're quoting is not good. I don't think I mentioned accounts.


Failure to understanding what should this thread be about ... well ..
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpaid Tactical Team
#53 - 2011-12-05 08:52:56 UTC
Hey I heard it's 2011.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#54 - 2011-12-05 09:10:23 UTC
Meryl SinGarda wrote:
Hey I heard it's 2011.

Indeed it is. You'd think that people would have forgotten the "max 4GB" myth by now…
Alexandros Balfros
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#55 - 2011-12-05 09:10:35 UTC
Jojo Jackson wrote:
[quote=Alexa Coates]
I don't know a singel program, which does not work under XP except DX11 which noone need.



See now i just know you have no idea what you're talking about, try playing battlefield bad company 2 under DX9 and DX11 and you'll massive yes MASSIVE performance increases in the game because its able to offload extra work to idle CPU cores to increase the processing of certain elements, so yes noone needs that at all do they >.>

As for the RAM comment, sure vista had RAM issues but win7 resolved those issues, but hey if you enjoy living in the past feel free to do so, XP actually reached its EOL but it was extended because of the issues with vista, had that not happened it would be dead now :)
RaTTuS
BIG
#56 - 2011-12-05 09:17:05 UTC
2 clients seem to work fine here,,,,

http://eveboard.com/ub/419190933-134.png http://i.imgur.com/kYLoKrM.png

TharOkha
0asis Group
#57 - 2011-12-05 09:18:04 UTC
WHy using the cars, when we have the horses. Idea

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
DelBoy Trades
Trotter Independent Traders.
Stealth Alliance
#58 - 2011-12-05 09:22:06 UTC
You're middle aged, you're sitting at a computer, on a game forum, arguing about different operating systems merits. The only reason you post is because you like to think you can write something clever against a faceless, remote, other middle aged person, sitting at a computer, on a game forum, arguing about different operating systems merits. Let the existential crisis begin...

Damn nature, you scary!
Marcus Harikari
#59 - 2011-12-05 09:47:47 UTC
LOL @ using computers. Whoever doesn't have a cybernetic implant directly in your eye/mind interface to run games is WAY behind the times. Noobs.

And XP pwns so much face. The only thing wrong is lack of support for over 4GB of RAM. But the only program that needs that much ram is Starcraft2, anyhow...I'm ok with running it at low settings, if that means I can continue to use the best operating system ever.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2011-12-05 09:50:28 UTC
Marcus Harikari wrote:
The only thing wrong is lack of support for over 4GB of RAM.
*sigh* Roll

Good news: XP is fairly easy to alter so it supports over 4GB of RAM.