FordGT90Concept wrote:
TanyaRubirose wrote:
They've been known for Simport becoming more unstable the more users it has, and in general it's not actually that used these days because of functionality issues.
That's always a potential problem with the server/client relationship. It's not due to 32-bit/64-bit but server load and the server's processing capabilities.
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.
There's also
how the site acts. You're familiar with how an overstressed 32-bit system can repeatedly drop libraries and such, right? Well, the main website here constantly drops libraries, along with the store portion (testing on the Store portion proved it was hosted on different servers than the main website) and the forums show signs of dropping libraries at times (ever notice how it suddenly has issues with people's avatars every once in awhile?). Now, if it were a 64-bit system, the reduced workload since a lot of people left the site after Showtime probably would've made things better, yet the website and such have only continued to get worse since then, and all of its main problem areas seem to be related to its libraries and keeping connections between the various servers. And even the Store itself dropped libraries recently, with nearly everything under worlds and build/buy missing for awhile.
Now, admittedly, the above issues could simply be other problems... but for the most part, these are consistent issues that are only getting worse as time goes by, despite the fact the officials have not reached the same level of activity they had back in 2011. Which either leaves the possibility that the people who are currently handling the site are a bunch of unpaid highschoolers, or the fault itself lies with the servers of the website. Considering I can't name a single 64-bit server for a video game company that has issues like this (WoW being a prime example, since it has millions of people has had people repeatedly try to crash the servers for the forums just to get Blizzard's attention), it is likely that the Sims 3 website is hosted on 32-bit servers just due to the technical issues.
Now, you're probably remembering what I said earlier about not having a degree, and ready to call bull upon what I said because I don't actually have the technical expertise to make that call (and, bravo, if you are). Well, you're right, I don't; I sat down one of my instructors, who happens to work for Cisco (my degree program is sponsored by them) and works on servers, and let them play around with it a bit. They're the one who said the server is probably 32-bit. Now, they might be wrong or it is possible I am remembering the technical aspects wrong, but I do have to go with the expertise of someone who actually works on servers.
TanyaRubirose wrote:
The forum itself also has massive database issues, which are part of what cause the Liam problems and connectivity issues people experience, and it uses a free Java-code forum that, the last time I checked, was 32-bit.
JForum is constructed using JavaServer Pages. As you should know, Java is available in 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. JSP can be executed by either.
Instead of running in circles with what we don't know, here's a site I know is being run on 64-bit Windows running 64-bit IIS6 and .NET Framework 4.0 64-bit:
http://fordgt90concept.homeip.net/test.aspx
Yes, I know there's not much to see there. There isn't supposed to be. Just proof that server can be 64-bit and the client software can be 64-bit, 32-bit, or even ARM (if you're browsing from a phone/tablet). They don't share binaries, just data.
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. I know this ^^
Now, keep in mind that World of Warcraft is also years older than this one (it was released in 2004, while Sims 3 was released in 2009).
Now, you might point out that's an MMO. Okay, fine then... let's try other games ^^
Diablo 3, SimCity, GTA 4's online mode, and Showtime for this game all had server issues at launch. Diablo 3 worked the ones it had out in a month, with the major ones worked out in a week; by all signs, SimCity has worked out most of its major issues from all reports; GTA 4 managed to get its major issues worked out quickly; Showtime has the same, if not worse, issues now compared to when it launched, and all indications from EA's side suggest they simply cannot fix those issues.
So, what is it that makes Showtime different? All of those other games are confirmed to have 64-bit servers, and some of them do massively more online than just share data (which you have said Showtime's simport does). And Showtime's simport doesn't have the workload those do. So, why it is so different, and why can't it be fixed? Well, if it were a 32-bit system, they couldn't fix it because the issue would be the servers themselves. Thus, why it is perfectly possible the servers might be 32-bit.
Oh, finally, I know that about Jforums; I was talking about this forum in particular, not the program itself.
FordGT90Concept wrote:
TanyaRubirose wrote:
And while it may be extremely foolish for some computers, there's actually a number of systems released on the market where a 64-bit system is actually a waste of money; many of these utilize cheap, low-end processors where the difference in performance between 32-bit and 64-bit is so minute as to be effectively nonexistent.
Just read this post now and I need to point something out here. x86-64 processors running an x64 program on an x64 operating system has access to 16 processor registers instead of 8. They receive a significant performance boost if they're very CPU intensive. 32-bit programs can't access those additional 8 registers.
"Cheap" systems these days often sell with 8 GiB or more memory because it's easy to convince customers they "need" it. If you're doing something (even running multiple 32-bit applications) that benefits from not switching to page file, it provides a significant boost even on "low end processors." Memory is memory. Either you have enough or you don't. 4 GiB is an easy number to hit these days.
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. Then note that, sometimes, these very cheap business computers end up sold to the public and bought due to how economical they are...
TanyaRubirose wrote:
...there's actually a number of computer applications that are 32-bit, some of which are actually essential for such things as internet service.
I'm posting this from IE10 64-bit and have been using 64-bit browsers on a daily basis for over a year. The only hurdle to using a 64-bit browser was Adobe not offering 64-bit components for Flash and Reader. Both are now available so, unless you're doing something really odd, 64-bit browsers aren't a problem. Even if you are, 32-bit browsers will function fine on a 64-bit operating system so start up the 32-bit version if there's an issue (Program Files (x86) instead of Program Files).
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.
TanyaRubirose wrote:
While these can function under a 64-system, there are a few specialty applications which are not actually compatible with 64-bit systems and require a 32-bit to run; those are also cases where a 32-bit system proves superior.
I've been using Windows x64 for almost 8 years now. The only programs that refused to run were games like Beyond Good & Evil and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory because of the DRM those games used. I now own BG&E from Good Old Games which is DRM free and it runs like a champ on Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit.
Out of all the programs I ran in eight years (hundreds of them), I can only name less than a dozen that had problems. Even an ancient game (dated I think 1996 or 1997) like Theme Hospital, which is 16-bit, was made to work on 64-bit in the GOG version by using DOSBox.
Put simply, if you find a program that doesn't work on 64-bit, you can either buy an updated version of it for cheap or you really need to upgrade (e.g. ancient DOS-based accounting programs).
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.
TanyaRubirose wrote:
Finally, if 64-bit is so popular, then why are 32-bit versions of Windows 8 being sold in every Walmart, Target, and Office Depot I've been to?
Retailers like you named target consumers that are upgrading, most likely from Windows XP. If you are upgrading a computer from Windows XP (not x64 Edition), it is best to go with 32-bit to avoid hardware compatibility issues. 32-bit is also suitable for devices such as tablets that never do much more than browsing the web. For all devices that do any more than browsing the web, it should (and most do) come preinstalled a 64-bit operating system.
I would have to say you're wrong on the "most do" bit. Goes back to job interviews I did around here; the majority of the computers that did more than just browse the web were ones I would have been required, by the job, to install 32-bit Windows 7 on. Considering I don't even use a 32-bit OS myself due to doing the research on it and learning how much better 64-bit is, I was rather unpleasantly surprised to learn how many people do seriously use it for most of their daily computer activities, including playing this game (in fact, a few posted on this very thread). It put my own advocacy of 64-bit into perspective and made me realize I was being a bit of an OS-snob.
TanyaRubirose wrote:
...the 64-bits tend to be harder to sell?
Probably because 64-bit got a bad wrap back in the XP x64 Edition days. Prior to Vista, x64 Edition was not for people that didn't know their way around computers because hardware support was a landmine. That changed with Vista because, to get WHQL logo'd manufacturers had to submit both 64-bit and 32-bit drivers for approval or they would get disapproved. Basically, that meant finding drivers for new hardware was no longer a problem like it was in the XP x64 days.
Also, people are afraid of change.
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; there's some hacker sites that now do XP 64-bit driver programming simply because it's more profitable and less risk than hacking at the moment). I don't use it personally because Windows 7 had better compatibility for games I was looking into at the time.
Also, these days, there are a lot of people, such as you and I, pointing out 64-bit is better, and I've not heard anyone mention XP 64-bit in years in serious computer discussions until your post. I don't think it's a factor anymore.
TanyaRubirose wrote:
I also notice you haven't named a single computer game that takes advantage of 64-bit systems...
Minecraft at high resolutions. It crashes like a boss when running on 32-bit Java. It never crashes on 64-bit.
The part I find amusing is I was tossing someone a bone to prove a point against me, and it's been everyone else who's picked it up :P
I was aware of Minecraft ^^
TanyaRubirose wrote:
Crysis had 32-bit and 64-bit versions (the first is the standard version that shipped with Steam). Some people have noted the 32-bit version crashes on 64-bit platforms, which reinforces what I said about potential compatibility issues between 32-bit applications and 64-bit OS's.
All games have the potential to crash. If done correctly, 64-bit is less likely to crash than 32-bit because of 32-bit's memory limitations.
That does not refute what I said about 32-bit Crysis; nice attempt to dismiss it.
TanyaRubirose wrote:
Half-Life 2 actually had its 64-bit mode removed back in 2009 (not certain if they ever added it back; it was still missing in 2010) due to bugs.
The Source engine (2004) is older than The Sims 3 (2009).
I don't have HL2 so I can't verify if it is or isn't there.
According to every HL2 player I've talked to? Last they knew, it's simply not there and hasn't been for years. I can't get anyone to actually verify if it's still missing or not; all I can say is that it was removed at one point.
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.
