I love this thread so much.
According to the past development speed of eve online, you still have 5 and half years to enjoy the 32bit eve client.
2 Likes
Man this thread is great. Letâs list some greatness.
- CCP is forcing us to play their game. And pay for it. Is that extortion?
- CCP has the nerve to upgrade the client to the current standard, a standard that hit the market about 10 years ago.
- CCP is violating our right to run multiple accounts on old-as-hell potato PC.
- 2015 is long behind us, and we all had that option to upgrade to windows 10⌠but some of use didnât! Because reasons!
2 Likes
none of this is true.
- CCP may be forcing us later on to use the 64b version to play.
- thatâs a free stupidity.
- same, the closest to this we can find is that OP is using several so nothing about rights or whatsoever and is only able to use two third of the number if he uses 64b version.
- indeed. Because reasons. Mind you whatever your OS is, you may be affected by this.
Funny that you spout things out of nowhere and feel entitled to be ironic.
You are off-topic. And trolling.
Sometimes you just have to upgrade your hardware.
64-bit architecture is already 10 years old. I guess you replace your cars more often.
1 Like
So to clarify, CCP WILL be retiring the 32bit client in time, literally 0.5% of players use a 32bit OS so there is no real benefit to staying on 32bit as libraries they depend on wonât be getting updated
People will have to get used to that simple fact and reasses how many clients they want to run, the overwhelming majority wonât even notice a difference due to not having silly low amounts of RAM to begin with, yes some older and cheaper machines might be hurt a little more but that isnât really the end of the world anyway as windows will quite happily be using the pagefile to keep unimportant things out of RAM, its been this way for a long time for windows, but yes unless youâre trying to run 20 clients on 16GB of RAM youâll be fine
1 Like
Thatâs not the issue. The issue is that for some people (with a 16GB RAM so I donât think he is using 32b architecture) going from the 32b version of the game to the 64b version (which also means his computer can handle 64b programs so 64b architecture) incurs a +50% RAM usage.
If this is true, then this may pose an issue to any people with several accounts and who uses those accounts together, and reaches over 60% of his total available memory for Eve with those accounts.
For example right now my internet browser uses 3GB (including cache), my Eve programs (servers, logging, etc) use 5GB so only 20GB are free for Eve. This means I can only start 20 accounts at the same time.
This is an issue because usually when a program is started several times, a lots of data is shared among the copiescopy-on-write memory access) and the increase in consumption is very far for double for two instances.
/me vomits
Yes i understood his âissueâ and with 16GB of RAM available its a non-issue unless he plans on running 20 clients, and even then paging will handle it
An increase of a couple hundred MB per client isnât the end of the world and thats going to happen over time anyway as more stuff is added to the client
Vomit all you like, windows already does this by default 
Oh the humanity, i mean you know you can just buy more RAM or upgrade your OS to a version that allows more RAM right?
Youâre not forced.
1 Like
I love that the sarcasm flew right over your head. Look how smart you are!
2 Likes
That should not happen.
Data should be cached among clients, so that when CCP add resources, the resources are loaded only once for all the clients.
Nope I canât.
Just saying, I am not concerned by this bug ; but itâs important to realize that if what OP described is correct, this is a real bug.
I have no idea if this is real, but Iâm trying to understand OPâs issue as it may be a very serious bug.
Youâre confusing disk space with actively loaded content, the resource cache is shared, but each client will need to load the resources it needs in to RAM, a shared cache doesnât negate that
I donât think its a bug, its just natural growth and a change to 64 bit libraries, they are more developed and likely contain extra features and security fixes that the x86 libraries had, there is a natural increase in memory costs by going x64 but that cost comes with the trade-off of being able to reference more than 4GB of RAM per process
The OPâs âissueâ is that he was already running at the limit of his system RAM and now that this has changed his clients are using a little more RAM each than they used to because of the changes, but these are normal changes and there will likely be a bump in system requirements to go along with them
It exactly negates that.
If I have an image on my computer, and I want to show this in image on several programs, assuming the image is not modified internally, each program should have the same internal reference to the image.
Assuming they have access to the same shared data (typically children of a main process - here each eve clients - DO have access to the memory of the parent - here eve launcher)
What would be the point of having a SHARED cached if it was not to share data among several clients ?
WHAT ? no. He had enough, but with 64b he does not have enough. Does not mean he was at the limit in any way.
No wonder, since you donât know that processes can share resources access in memory âŚ
And they do, but each application loads a copy of that image in to its own memory when it opens it, memory doesnât work like disk storage does, each application is given its own memory and generally speaking nothing else will interact with that memory, the shared cache just means they all use the same set of resource files and its there to prevent you needing to have multiple copies of the same file, each client still needs to load the resources it uses in to its own allocated portion of RAM
The file cache is shared, the memory isnât
Sure they âcanâ but they generally donât, especially when it comes to games and any anti-cheat protection, its why some games crash if your AV software starts trying to poke around, it also means any issues with the data in memory will only affect a single client and not take down all 20 at once, which is what would happen in a situation with a shared cache, at the end of the day while they âcanâ share RAM there is a reason you generally donât do it
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.