Initial Alpha access restricted to 64 bit OS

Yeah, call me crazy but I actually gamed on XP 64-bit. It was usually the game copy protections that went crazy and where the biggest problem (thank you very much Splinter Cell Chaos Theory... just don't let me play you and your crazy driver-based protection scheme, just take my money and don't work).

I did install OS/2 (yey Doom in a window!), Windows NT 4.0 and other stuff just to learn.

If it ain't broke... there's probably some crazy experimental thing I can do to it...

That's pretty much the low-cost and easy way out of all those "oh but I have a 32-bit OS/oh I have XP" problems.

With the state of Linux today, it can actually be really quick and easy to install. Hell, I'm too lazy to reinstall my 32-bit Linux with a 64-bit one (it's setup just the way I want it), might just install one on the side and triple-boot until I've migrated.

I actually gamed on Windows 2000 up until about a month before Vista came out. Only then did I finally upgrade to XP.

No need to replace something if it still does the job. The problem is that a 32 bit OS just doesn't do the job any more and hasn't for a couple of years now as far as serious gaming is concerned.

AMD64 debuted in April 2003 with the original Opteron for the server market, and in September 2003 with the Athlon 64 for desktop. In 2004 the budget and mobile CPUs were released. By 2006 they had ceased production on all 32 bit x86 cpus.

Intel 64 (originally IA-32a or EM64T) debuted in June 2004 with the Xeon MP. Desktop 64 bit CPUs did not emerge until mid 2005 and then only in very small samples to OEMs. It wasn't until July 2006, after AMD had already ceased production of 32 bit cpus, that consumers could directly purchase Intel 64 cpus with the release of the Core 2 Duo. Intel continued to make 32 bit CPUs for the mobile market until 2008.

Ironically Intel was actually shipping 64 bit capable CPUs to consumers as early as July 2004, but chose not to enable the feature.

There is such a small number of 32 bit users, it shouldn't be much of a choice. Announcing a 32 bit kill now would give those users 7 months to get upgraded. (Which is very easy and inexpensive these days.)

Great to hear you are throwing out XP support. That OS should have been drug into the street and shot, years ago.

Well, if it´s about the question to use your hardware on a optimal level, there was always way´s to allocate more RAM with a 32-bit OS as the regular 4 gig, and it seems you got some idear of what are you talking, so you should know that.

Of course it´s easyer to switch to a 64-bit OS, if you can, no question about it! And 64-bit is better to use the hardware at a full potential, but dont create the illusion that a 32-bit system would stonewall your ability what you can get out of the hardware. Sure it will not run so smoothly as with a 64-bit system, but it isnt bad, either.

So, thats why i sayed that a console would be a easyer way if you want to have all on a same level. Because the RAM Allocation mythos of 4 gig max isnt true at all. As for Civ 5, i can play it completly smoothly and nice with 8 gig ram and a 32-Bit OS.

Just as a simple example, my instructions for the use of more then 4gb Ram is in german ^^.

The Link i posted is just some talks about possibilitys. But if you use a metasearchengine or "google" for people who dont like metasearch engines, you can find plenty of ways to get a 32bit system to do what you want it to do!

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/arc ... 18299.aspx (and thats from 2009 )

And like i say, you underrestimate the people in OTHER COUNTRYS THEN THE U.S. that still uses 32-bit system. The question to kill a 32-bit support is ridicioulus.

Servers were using clever BIOS tricks to get 32 bit Windows to see more than 4 gigs of RAM years before 64 bit became common. However such tricks are not ideal for a home PC.

If you are using such tricks on your box then the issue I described earlier probably won't effect you. However I would bet that fewer than 10% of the 32 bit systems out there today contain the type of BIOS needed to allow a 32 bit OS to address more than 4 gigs of RAM. And I seriously doubt that any games have ever been written to allocate memory in the way the linked article describes due to the massive performance hit you take from not being able to use pointers to mapped address space. (I know that no major OS has ever been written like that.)

Servers usually addressed this issue with custom motherboard drivers that worked with the special BIOS settings or by binding 4 gigs of ram to each CPU socket. However this isn't really practical for home PCs.

Running a 32 bit OS does stonewall your ability to use the hardware to its full potential. Clever BIOS tricks can only take you so far and forgoing pointers is a really bad idea from a performance standpoint. If that wasn't the case then 64 bit computing wouldn't have taken off like it did. I'd like to see you address 64 gigs of RAM in that box or match the memory performance of a 64 bit system that can use pointers.

The idea of keeping 32 bit support is a bit ridiculous from a technical standpoint but I can understand and accept it from a business standpoint.

Also I don't think the geographical location of a box is relevant to the capabilities of the hardware. Unless you are talking about licensed feature sets and export controls. Or are you proud that you managed to rig a redneck solution rather than use modern equipment?

@ferigad - Memory (RAM) has nothing to do with FPS, or how 'smooth' your game runs.

It has everything to do with how much you can put in the game at once; how many values you can store with each object, and how detailed you can be with each of those values.

True, and still you tryed it first with the 4gb club to kill every discussion about 32-bit systems. Yes it stonewalls it for it´s maximum potential, but it isnt as black as you try to describe it before. I honestly agree that 64-bit is better, but then you should be honest too and dont try to come with cheap statement to win a argument. At least it seems you are proud to use cheap statements to get your point.

And about the people who honestly sayed kill 32-bit would be a solution, dont forget a crucial point. Even the Steam survey about used OS isnt a good source, specially if you check out how mutch ppl use a english setup and how many uses there own languagesetup for steam, as example. And the german board of PA isnt that mutch active, either, as a example. And the people that doesnt even bother to look into the boards or check it on a weekly or monthly base.


@plink

We talked about that statement. But thanks for the input, even if it has nothing to do with this argument.

How does the fact that my example applies to probably 90% or more of all 32 bit systems out there make it a cheap statement? I'd say that it makes it a very good point.

Just because you can dig up some weird old motherboard that can run 8 gigs of ram in 32 bit Windows doesn't mean that a 32 bit PA client isn't going to have serious limitations for most people. Arguing about edge cases is pointless. What matters is what applies to the majority of 32 bit users, who do have a hard 4 gig limit.

Honestly, it isnt even worth to discuss about, every person can check it out for himself, you can get a way around the RAM limitation you talked so proudly off. And the 10% you just took out of the air, i dont see any kind of prove. You just bet on it. Proved you allready 1 time wrong, so i wouldnt count to mutch on your bets.

I made my point. Thats all i wanted to do. I am even agree to your statement that 64-bit is better. But i dont agree the way you try to make your point, with cheap arguments and half-truth. Use real arguments you can prove.

I rest my case.

Do you even know how the methods for getting around the 4 gig addressable limit work? Because it doesn't sound like you do.

You cannot just take a normal run of the mill box and throw a 32 bit CPU in it with 8 gigs of ram and expect it to all be usable. I'm sorry but it just doesn't work like that. There is no magic program that you can install to fix the problem unless you have very specific non consumer hardware. If you know of some magic solution to this problem please enlighten us with your wisdom.

The 10% is roughly based on desktop sales figures vs server sales figures from the era when this sort of hardware was being made and used. I admit it is an educated guess but I feel its closer to correct than not.

You are quite right that there are 32 bit systems out there that can address more than 4 gigs of ram and that by using certain memory allocation methods programmers can get around the 4 gig process allocation limit when their 32 bit application is run on such a system. And everyone can read about these memory allocation methods on the page you linked. But these methods still don't solve the original issue of getting a 32 bit OS to see more than 4 gigs of RAM without special hardware.

However such systems are quite rare these days and nobody in the game development business that I am aware of writes games like that. So you are trying to use a special edge case to make an example and claim that it applies to everyone. You might as well say that all auto paint stores should only sell red paint because you happen to own a Ferrari.

I think that does not make sense to support 32 bit while the game requires 4 GB RAM. I know that performance can be improved during the development stage, but can the improvement so dramatic?

I think so. Supporting 32 bit is a reasonable goal from a technical standpoint as long as you are willing limit the size of matches a bit.

Of course the sample is yet too small and since it was made in this forum is a little biased, but the questions that uber made about our systems shows that it is not only 10% of the 32bit users that have more than 4gb it is 32% of the users, almost 1/3!!! :shock:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1tVt3OASd52RWnceQLRm_NY7PxUHnnguof8oVs04glxY/viewanalytics?pli=1

Well, I'm one of the 5% with an old system and 32bit OS. I've been going to upgrade for a few months now but I just haven't gotten it done. So, should I upgrade now, in time for Alpha or wait for Haswell? Last I heard Haswell is supposed to land early June.

I'd say close to 100% of those people can only use < 4GB of their installed RAM. More likely those users dual boot into a 64bit OS. I believe antillie was talking about usable RAM, not simply installed RAM.

Also, besides the 4GB limit to what the OS can see, applications running on the OS can typically only use 2GB (at least on WinXP) each. This can be upped to 3GB *if* the application is Large Address Aware *and* the OS has this enabled.

See, this is my dilemma. I built a good gaming system in 2008. It plays pretty much most games coming out today, maybe not at highest detail, but it plays them. I do have issues where I run into memory problems, i.e. Minecraft, but those are sometimes bearable. I have a feeling that most people that are currently using 32bit Windows are probably in the same boat. It isn't a simple matter of adding memory and upgrading the OS. It becomes a new processor, memory, motherboard and OS. That all can be pretty pricey all at once.

Don't take this as me saying that Uber should cripple PA to support 32bit because of this. But I do wish people wouldn't lambast those that may not be able to swing a large financial hit all at once just to play PA during the alpha at the beginning.

It is not as simple as just adding more memory for many of us.

What CPU were you able to buy in 2008 that wasn't 64 bit capable?

Also since it sounds like your box is already showing its age on older games I don't think its too surprising that it might not be able to handle the absolute newest games. I mean come on, 5 years is pretty old. Its well past time to upgrade.

Just for reference a new quad core 64 bit CPU, mobo, and 8 gigs of RAM comes to $197 on newegg. If you need a Windows license then its $100 for a copy of Windows 7 or 8. (*cough* Steam runs on Linux *cough*) Even a reasonable video card is only $95.

I realize that this can be a lot of money for some people but as gaming rigs go its pretty darn cheap. Even a console costs more. (Never mind that the Xbox One and PS4 will almost certainly cost more than a 360/PS3 cost today.)

Sorry, but no. If your computer is 5 years old, it's time to upgrade. If money is tight, dig through the garbage and bug friends. Buy what you can't find, and assemble it from parts. It's easy to save 50% or more by rebuilding a decent (if used) PC.

If you can't afford a cheap PC or the effort required to maximize your money, then you certainly can't spare the luxury of playing video games.