We require 64-bit binaries

FordGT90Concept wrote:

TanyaRubirose wrote:
And as you've pointed out on this very thread, whether or not it's 32-bit or 64-bit is part of its processing capabilities, so in a way you just contradicted yourself in the very same sentence.

An Intel Atom processor running 64-bit Windows is very easy to overwhelm compared to a Core i7 processor running Windows 32-bit. Obvious exception is if the workload for both demands more than 4 GiB of RAM. If the workload is equal and requires, say 2 GiB of RAM, the Core i7 will slaughter the Atom many times over.

And you're comparing two different processors with two different bit-type OSes on them; that's comparing apples to cabbages in computing terms. How about picking a single processor and sticking with it when you make your argument, especially since a lot of what we're discussing is whether or not the Sims 3 servers are 32-bit or 64-bit and how it relates to Sims 3 being released as 64-bit.

Your comparison is irrelevant, due to the fact you didn't even keep the bit-type the same, and your comment has no point due to that very same reason.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
There's also how the site acts. You're familiar with how an overstressed 32-bit system can repeatedly drop libraries and such, right?

Uh no. Once a library is loaded, it is rarely "dropped." Crashes can occur when trying to load a library and it is not present, is incompatible, or there isn't enough virtual memory to put it in.

The problem forum.thesims3.com has is that the server can only handle, say 1000 continuous connections. When 1200 try to use it, it tries to service them instead of sending them to a 500 HTTP error (internal server error). That means the experience for everyone declines.

This has nothing to do with the context of this thread.

It has a lot to do with the context of this thread when you consider the Exchange and Store, both features of the site, are themselves hooked into the online portions of the game and that the current Mypages are connected directly to Simport. These things have been observed repeatedly to affect functioning of online portions of the game, and thus you cannot dismiss them as having no context to the thread when they are part of how the game itself runs and present a potential serious issue when it comes time to consider Sims 3 64-bit.

Also, yes, it is dropping libraries... those missing sections of the Store I mentioned? They went missing for everyone; that can't be easily explained by a virtual memory issue when the library is supposed to be already loaded and can't be explained by service limitations when it affected everyone.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
World of Warcraft has used 64-bit servers since launch; this is very well known, and those servers have been stress-tested with people attempting to crash them on purpose (and, in one rare instance, succeeding and earning bans for it). Even now, years later and with that kind of abuse, the oldest servers they have do not act like the ones here, and for quite awhile World of Warcraft itself was 32-bit.

WOW is a subscription service. They are paid to keep the servers running because without smooth operation, they can't hold up their end of the subscription agreement. These forums are not part of a subscription service and they are a low-priority for EA. On the other hand, the servers running SimCity are high priority because those servers are instrumental to the functioning of the game. If EA has $1000 to spend on upgrading a sever, it will be directed at SimCity, not this forum.

I notice you specified the forum and not the site. Admittedly, the forum isn't that necessary... but the site itself is, given how it interconnects with the online portions of the game and one part of the site is a revenue stream for EA.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
4 GiB is also still heavily sold to a number of places; get into where I talked about businesses that intentionally use 32-bit systems and 4 GiB processors just to make certain employees are so hobbled they can't do much playing around on the computer.

No, they do it because they're cheaper, have less backwards compatibility with in-house developed software, and because the applications they run will never require more than ~2 GiB of RAM. Case in point: you'd be hard pressed to find a CAD computer that isn't 64-bit these days because they do use 8+ GiB of RAM.

Additionally, a lot of these cheap computers are simply terminals to virtual server on a mainframe. All the computer horse power resides on the mainframe. The terminals require hardly any power at all to function as intended.

They're only cheaper on the computers themselves, but the low-memory computers can be a serious problem; the 8-GiB's you mentioned are actually cheaper when productivity for a normal work computing environment is factored in, and most companies know it. So, it's not that the 4-Gigs are just cheaper for companies; it's that the 4-gig is actually quite limiting due to its low memory capacity and 32-bit OS.

And, yes, I have actually examined them; the ones I'm talking about are full-fledged computers, not terminals. Server goes down, they still work.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
Think less "internet browser" and more "TCP/IP and similar processes" for that one. I was ignoring browsers and IP itself, since the former can be 64-bit and the latter 128-bit, but there are processes elsewhere that are 32-bit. The intention was to head off any long discussion of doing away with everything 32-bit, as there have been some calls for that (one can be seen on this thread) without people considering the consequences to networks and the internet. I was merely making certain it was completely understood that 32-bit is likely here to stay, even if just in processes most people don't directly deal with or are even necessarily that aware of.

TCP is a transmission protocol which only passes data. It doesn't matter what handles it so long as it can do it without error and in an orderly fashion.

All code that is 32-bit can be made 64-bit by simply recompiling. All code that is 16-bit can also be made 64-bit by simply recompiling. 64-bit is backwards compatible with 32-bit and 16-bit (Microsoft axed 16-bit in Windows on Windows 64 but the x86-64 processors could still do it in 64-bit real mode). 32-bit is backwards compatible with 16-bit--it is not forwards compatible.

Bottomline: everyone has a lot to gain by going 64-bit and little to lose by doing so.

And everything you just said is completely irrelevant to what I had said that you are replying to in this section. Go back, look at it again, and consider the context I pointed out. Context changes the meaning a lot.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
Sometimes, the upgrade simply doesn't exist. That's the problem. Go back and read what Blunote said in her post to see an example of a situation where an upgrade simply didn't exist. Blunote's company managed to solve it... a lot of companies and such simply won't be able to.

Then keep your 32-bit computer and play 32-bit The Sims 3. It matters not to me.

And if you read everything in my posts to just you instead of skimming them, you'd know I run a 64-bit Windows 7 OS on a machine I built myself and that I put the time and research into choosing the parts and such... and that I also advocate the 64-bit OS. Reading all of what I say really is important; you avoid making yourself look bad.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
I would have to say you're wrong on the "most do" bit.

See my post about Newegg a while back. >35% of computers without a doubt have 64-bit because they had 4.5 GiB of RAM or more preinstalled. The remaining 15% can easily be found in systems shipping with 4 GiB of memory (which is more or less the norm now). I've worked on a lot of cheapy computers that are used for office work and was shocked that they all had 64-bit despite not having much RAM.

If you don't believe me, go to BestBuy or some place that sells computers with Windows preinstalled and see how many of them have 64-bit Windows. It'll be harder to find one that doesn't than does.

Where do you think one of the places I interviewed at was? Even the ones around here said the 64-bit systems are just not selling and they actually need people with intimate familiarity of Windows 7 32-bit. As such, if I wanted a job with them, I would need to have my skills on 32-bit OSes up to date.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
Ironic in that you point out Vista, which was a failed OS, and compared it to XP, which remains in use due to how popular it was (even the 64-bit is in use;

It "failed" for the same reason Windows 8 is "failing" now. People don't like significant GUI changes. Irrelevant to this thread.

It would help if you read everything of what I said; you would note I cited that the 64-bit XP is still around and still supported. Instead, you chose only a portion of it, and then said something that was completely irrelevant to what I actually said and does not even address my point.

Your reply is irrelevant and pointless, and your claim that what I said is irrelevant is refuted just by looking at the whole section instead of a fragment of one of my sentences.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
That does not refute what I said about 32-bit Crysis; nice attempt to dismiss it.

I never played Crysis but, going from past experience, people hated on x64 Edition because it crashed all the time. I actually can't name one time it crashed on me that wasn't hardware related. So forgive me if I don't take people's opinions seriously on this matter. People play the blame game for matters they don't understand.

Oddly, people tell me they hated the 32-bit version because it crashed all of the time, and was found to be a compatibility issue. But, then, the people I know wouldn't play it on 32-bit anyway if they could help it; their computers are all 64-bit gaming machines, in some cases built along the same lines as my own.

TanyaRubirose wrote:
And I still don't see your point on the fact the engine is older; it doesn't change the fact the 64-bit version of the game was disabled due to bugs, or the fact that Sims 3 and the recently-released SimCity are both 32-bit.

I can't find any official statement from Valve as to why they disabled the 64-bit version of Half-Life 2. Considering how little there is on the internet about it, it's safe to conclude people weren't all that disappointed about it (most likely because Half-Life 2 really didn't benefit from it).

You'll have to get into their forums; their tech people who posted back in... 2010?... said it was removed due to crashing issues; people were actually disappointed, even then, because of it being gone and there were calls for it to come back. That's pretty much as close to an official statement as you'll find on this one.