Poin_Dex_Tenobi Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 64bit is x86. The more you know... Uhm no. X64 is 64bit. X86 is 32 bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shananigan Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) 64bit is x86. The more you know... LOL, haha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 You sure know alot, huh? One thing I dislike about the internet, everyone knows everything, yet rarely ever bothers to check, even though the information is at the tip of their fingers, literaly. Edited January 11, 2012 by shananigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exilious Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Uhm no. X64 is 64bit. X86 is 32 bit. Nope. 64 bit is x86-64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exilious Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 LOL, haha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86 You sure know alot, huh? One thing I dislike about the internet, everyone knows everything, yet rarely ever bothers to check, even though the information is at the tip of their fingers, literaly. herpa derp wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthSublimitas Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Granted, but an entirely separate question. Could be a typo in the rendering code yielding crap FPS for all we know. Definately for sure. Most problems we experience today with software are from syntax erros in programming: someone forgetting to put a ";" at the end of a line of code or putting one there. Someone using the wrong character by mistake; using \ instead of /. Or ppl forgetting to "comment out" code by using // or some similar device. This happens a lot when programers are under a lot of pressure to finish a project; they will comment out a lot of code and uncomment it later, cut corners or just leave out code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shananigan Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) herpa derp wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 That is something completely different. "existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties" in the link you just posted Maybe you should READ, the link I posted, it will explain why you are very, very wrong. Edited January 11, 2012 by shananigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiron_Raptor Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 64bit is x86. The more you know... It's based on it, but extends it. To the effect that it can run 32 bit x86 code natively. The same is not true the other way around, however. Which is why we've got a 32 bit SWTOR client: it'll work on any system. a 64 bit client would work somewhat better than a 32 bit program on a 64 bit system and provide some much larger opportunities for things like graphical improvements, but at the cost of it...not working at all on 32 Bit OSes. If everyone had a 64 bit OS, it wouldn't be an issue. As it stands the choices are to either use 32 bit and accept the resulting penalty in the form of memory addess limitations; forsake 32 bit entirely in favor of a 64 bit client; or go all out and maintain two separate clients, one 32 bit and one 64 bit. It's reasonably likely that, within SWTOR's lifetime, it will hit a point, sooner or later, where it needs to go 64 bit in order to improve things any further. What happens at that point should be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exilious Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 That is something completely different. "existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties" in the link you just posted Maybe you should READ, the link I posted, it will explain why you are very, very wrong. I don't think you actually read it. Did you read it? Nope you didn't. You really should, what with the information being at your fingertips and all. Modern 64 bit is nothing like the old Itanium 64bit. It's x86-64. It's completely kernel based x86 with 64bit components added in. You will never see a sole 64bit OS. It'll never happen. Do some research. Internet. Fingertips. Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthSublimitas Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 You're not going to find an argument from me. Ease off the aggressive tone as well. It's not needed. If the "tone" was construed as aggressive, that must be in your head. I'm giving an explanation from a purely technical view - human emotion has no place here. I'm telling you computer facts - nothing more, nothing less. If you wish to "project," that is something you need to work out with a therapist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shananigan Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I don't think you actually read it. Did you read it? Nope you didn't. You really should, what with the information being at your fingertips and all. Modern 64 bit is nothing like the old Itanium 64bit. It's x86-64. It's completely kernel based x86 with 64bit components added in. You will never see a sole 64bit OS. It'll never happen. Do some research. Internet. Fingertips. Wikipedia. Notice how the term they use is x86-64, not x86. Edited January 11, 2012 by shananigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonlinar Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Definately for sure. Most problems we experience today with software are from syntax erros in programming: someone forgetting to put a ";" at the end of a line of code or putting one there. Someone using the wrong character by mistake; using \ instead of /. Or ppl forgetting to "comment out" code by using // or some similar device. This happens a lot when programers are under a lot of pressure to finish a project; they will comment out a lot of code and uncomment it later, cut corners or just leave out code. Syntax errors are easy. Any half-wit compiler will throw a build error with syntax. Logic errors are what get you. Edge cases on ranges and the like. No compiler can catch those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exilious Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Notice how the term they use is x86-64, not x86. And that is what we use today! Intel chips support x86-64, AMD chips support x86-64. None of them support pure x64 (AKA IA-64) 64bit Windows 7 is X86-64. Read, my friend. Fingertips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthSublimitas Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 64bit is x86. The more you know... HAHAHAHA you made a funny Almost had to do a double take. I'm glad you really know that x86 is referring to a 32bit system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shananigan Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) And that is what we use today! Intel chips support x86-64, AMD chips support x86-64. None of them support pure x64 (AKA IA-64) 64bit Windows 7 is X86-64. Read, my friend. Fingertips. "Although most x86 processors used in new personal computers and servers have 64-bit capabilities, to avoid compatibility problems with older computers or systems, the term x86-64 (or x64) is often used to denote 64-bit software, with the term x86 implying only 32-bit" He said x86 not x86-64 as they are different. The more you know.... Watch this guy just disappear, the internet is so awsome lol Edited January 11, 2012 by shananigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonlinar Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 If the "tone" was construed as aggressive, that must be in your head. I'm giving an explanation from a purely technical view - human emotion has no place here. I'm telling you computer facts - nothing more, nothing less. If you wish to "project," that is something you need to work out with a therapist... "Whether you like it or not" is not technical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiron_Raptor Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 You will never see a sole 64bit OS. It'll never happen. Actuallly...that probably will, depending on how you're defining it. It may not even be terribly long before it does. 32 bit and 64 bit x86 are nearly identical, but the differences are sufficient that you can't make a single build of a program both 32 and 64 bit. Microsoft deciding they don't want to create and maintain a separate 32 bit branch of their new OSes anymore wouldn't be surprising at all. For the time being there wouldn't be any particular reason not to continue support of WOW64, so they'd still be able to run 32 bit processes... So if by 'sole 64 bit OS' you mean 'no 32 bit version of the OS', that'll almost certainly happen. If you mean 'can only run 64 bit programs' instead, that MAY not happen, and certainly won't anytime soon. Maybe someday, when everyone's switched to just doing 64 bit builds because it's easier to just use the same set of tools across all your projects, microsoft might decide that they don't want to go to the effort of supporting WOW64 anymore, and 32 bit support will go away. The Processors will still be able to run it almost for sure, but the memory addresses still have to be translated between the OS's 64 bit and the program's 32 bit in order for it to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwimeister Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Actuallly...that probably will, depending on how you're defining it. It may not even be terribly long before it does. 32 bit and 64 bit x86 are nearly identical, but the differences are sufficient that you can't make a single build of a program both 32 and 64 bit. Microsoft deciding they don't want to create and maintain a separate 32 bit branch of their new OSes anymore wouldn't be surprising at all. For the time being there wouldn't be any particular reason not to continue support of WOW64, so they'd still be able to run 32 bit processes... So if by 'sole 64 bit OS' you mean 'no 32 bit version of the OS', that'll almost certainly happen. If you mean 'can only run 64 bit programs' instead, that MAY not happen, and certainly won't anytime soon. Maybe someday, when everyone's switched to just doing 64 bit builds because it's easier to just use the same set of tools across all your projects, microsoft might decide that they don't want to go to the effort of supporting WOW64 anymore, and 32 bit support will go away. The Processors will still be able to run it almost for sure, but the memory addresses still have to be translated between the OS's 64 bit and the program's 32 bit in order for it to work. I love how ur post went from deeming BW's tech's morons...to a full blown tech talk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myrmexaw Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So we'll never see a sole 64 bit eh ... i guess the guy back then in 1990 said the same thing that it was madness to use 64bit .... Who knows maybe microsoft will announce a 128bit OS in 2020....Don't forget the first computer started up with a 256k hard disk and that was a BOMB ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpBisquick Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Definately for sure. Most problems we experience today with software are from syntax erros in programming: someone forgetting to put a ";" at the end of a line of code or putting one there. Someone using the wrong character by mistake; using \ instead of /. Or ppl forgetting to "comment out" code by using // or some similar device. This happens a lot when programers are under a lot of pressure to finish a project; they will comment out a lot of code and uncomment it later, cut corners or just leave out code. No. Those are mistakes you make in Intro to Programming 101. And syntax errors do not compile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwimeister Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So we'll never see a sole 64 bit eh ... i guess the guy back then in 1990 said the same thing that it was madness to use 64bit .... Who knows maybe microsoft will announce a 128bit OS in 2020....Don't forget the first computer started up with a 256k hard disk and that was a BOMB ! I remember when i used to walk around school wth a 512kb floppy disk in my shirt pocket!...simply because i had one....i was cool ...ish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwimeister Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 No. Those are mistakes you make in Intro to Programming 101. And syntax errors do not compile. i concur! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiron_Raptor Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 I love how ur post went from deeming BW's tech's morons...to a full blown tech talk! I'm a computer tech to begin with, and I'm sleepy. To be honest though, far as I'm concerned if all this speculation DID turn out right, it wouldn't be the fault of BW's techs. It'd be someone who wears a suit and tie, probably drives an audi, and hasn't been directly involved with a development project in years, if ever, because he probably has an MBA and doesn't know much about coding. Slipping something like that in there is a business decision, not a technical decision. It happens because someone says 'we must find a way to stop <thing>', or worse yet 'I want you to put <thing> in'. If it is in there, there's a fair chance that the devs themselves think it's a terrible idea, but don't dare go against the wishes of upper management. All you can do in a situation like that is try to make sure that it isn't your butt in the sling when it predictably comes crashing down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonlinar Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I'm a computer tech to begin with, and I'm sleepy. To be honest though, far as I'm concerned if all this speculation DID turn out right, it wouldn't be the fault of BW's techs. It'd be someone who wears a suit and tie, probably drives an audi, and hasn't been directly involved with a development project in years, if ever, because he probably has an MBA and doesn't know much about coding. Slipping something like that in there is a business decision, not a technical decision. It happens because someone says 'we must find a way to stop <thing>', or worse yet 'I want you to put <thing> in'. If it is in there, there's a fair chance that the devs themselves think it's a terrible idea, but don't dare go against the wishes of upper management. All you can do in a situation like that is try to make sure that it isn't your butt in the sling when it predictably comes crashing down. I like the "we need to solve x" type managers so that if there is blowback they can blame you and you have no recourse since they can claim they didn't tell you how to do it so it must be your fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwimeister Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I'm a computer tech to begin with, and I'm sleepy. To be honest though, far as I'm concerned if all this speculation DID turn out right, it wouldn't be the fault of BW's techs. It'd be someone who wears a suit and tie, probably drives an audi, and hasn't been directly involved with a development project in years, if ever, because he probably has an MBA and doesn't know much about coding. Slipping something like that in there is a business decision, not a technical decision. It happens because someone says 'we must find a way to stop <thing>', or worse yet 'I want you to put <thing> in'. If it is in there, there's a fair chance that the devs themselves think it's a terrible idea, but don't dare go against the wishes of upper management. All you can do in a situation like that is try to make sure that it isn't your butt in the sling when it predictably comes crashing down. Oh i agree with you one hundred percent....i had that same thought when skimming thru all these rants n raves and speculations..and im a tech as well.... i've had my share of suits that have a paper that says they know s$%t but dont actually know anything! The Sad truth is...for such a decision to be reversed...the Game on a whole would have to take a hit.....and desipte all its flaws in its early stage...its still a pretty good game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
they Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Actuallly...that probably will, depending on how you're defining it. It may not even be terribly long before it does. 32 bit and 64 bit x86 are nearly identical, but the differences are sufficient that you can't make a single build of a program both 32 and 64 bit. Microsoft deciding they don't want to create and maintain a separate 32 bit branch of their new OSes anymore wouldn't be surprising at all. For the time being there wouldn't be any particular reason not to continue support of WOW64, so they'd still be able to run 32 bit processes... So if by 'sole 64 bit OS' you mean 'no 32 bit version of the OS', that'll almost certainly happen. If you mean 'can only run 64 bit programs' instead, that MAY not happen, and certainly won't anytime soon. Maybe someday, when everyone's switched to just doing 64 bit builds because it's easier to just use the same set of tools across all your projects, microsoft might decide that they don't want to go to the effort of supporting WOW64 anymore, and 32 bit support will go away. The Processors will still be able to run it almost for sure, but the memory addresses still have to be translated between the OS's 64 bit and the program's 32 bit in order for it to work. You mean like OSX 10.7, in that it only supports x86-64? I'd call that 64 bit only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts