Celestia Forums

This posting will be used to accumulate some suggestions for making Celestia work under Vista. Most of these suggestions are not specific to Vista, however. The problems encountered under Vista are the same kinds of problems as are seen under other versions of Windows.

Addressing limitations:
Ceiestia is a 32 bit application, so it's limited to somewhat more than 2GB. However, it works fine under both Vista 32 and Vista 64.

Crashes:
Celestia will crash if you do not have up-to-date graphics drivers. The graphics drivers included with Vista are buggy and *not* up-to-date. You must download and install updated drivers from the Web site of the manufacturer of your graphics hardware. All of the graphics hardware vendors are updating their drivers for Vista on almost a weekly basis.

URLs:
Cel:// URLs work fine under Vista with Word 2007.

fsgregs wrote:MS Word automatically requires the use of [Ctrl] + click to launch a hyperlink, but there is a menu item to eliminate the need to press [Ctrl]. Go to the Tools/Options/Edit menu, and uncheck the box that says, "use Ctrl+Click for hyperlinks". Click OK. From that point forward, simply pointing and clicking once on a cel:url or hyperlink will launch it.

Security:
Vista enforces some security requirements which usually are optional under earlier versions of Windows. You may have to select options to disable that enforcement for Celestia. E.g. allowing URLs to run programs.

"At NASA, Windows Vista Isn't Ready For Launch
Space agency among the growing list of federal agencies that have put a temporary hold on Windows Vista rollouts."

http://www.informationweek.com/news/sho ... =199201229

cheers, Anders

--- edit ---

my 4 cents is JUST DO IT
no need to wait for about 2 to 4 years


Ren?©

my 8 cents is wait for SP1


( as I recommend for all M$ OS's )
Chris. with insider knowledge, most likely knows better the reasons for this policy.

CC

My half cent
I've tested Vista for a while with my brand new Dell Inspiron 6400 with Nvidia Ge Force 7300. Celestia runs, a bit slower than under XP but runs.
I'm using Solidworks for job (a professional 3D CAD that uses OpenGL). That program is slower and unstable. Many visual artifacts appears when it does not crash. The video drivers are still buggy. The Solidworks reseller told me that Microsoft is doing almost nothing to help them on the OpenGL side. So everything is in charge to the video manufuacturers. But the worst news is that both NVidia and ATI are developing their Vista drivers slowly. The last official Vista driver for my system (updated yesterday evening) is dated November 2006 . 6 Months ago!

IMHO Vista is still immature as mainstream OS. Since every new PC with a Microsoft OS is sold with Vista preinstalled the choice is to consider that it is downgradable. So it is possible to format the PC and install XP using the same installation code. When Vista will be more mature it will be possible to do the inverse path reformatting the PC and reinstalling it.

Kind regards

Well I finally got Celestia to perfectly under Vista. No crashing, no loading hang-ups. The thing is, that I have it installed on a single core Athlon 64 3500+ with a 6800GS with 256mb instead of my Pentium D dual core with 7600GS+ with 256mb. I can't confirm that this is the breaking factor as of yet, but I am starting to wonder.

I will follow up later after I have booted my Vista install back up on my new computer, I haven't booted it in over a month now.

Don. Edwards

Im not sure what the fuss is about vista.

I have been running Celestia Perfectly since Vista's Launch.
Or at least since the 2nd set of Beta graphics drivers was released.

UNBELIVEABLE.Darkmiss has a QUAD CPU!!
Soon,only ME will have a single CPU,1 gig and a modest video card and I won??t be able to run Celestia DECENTLY any more.It??s not FAIR...

Darkmiss wrote:Im not sure what the fuss is about vista.

I have been running Celestia Perfectly since Vista's Launch.
Or at least since the 2nd set of Beta graphics drivers was released.

danielj wrote:UNBELIVEABLE.Darkmiss has a QUAD CPU!!
Soon,only ME will have a single CPU,1 gig and a modest video card and I won??t be able to run Celestia DECENTLY any more.It??s not FAIR...

Darkmiss wrote:Im not sure what the fuss is about vista.

I have been running Celestia Perfectly since Vista's Launch.
Or at least since the 2nd set of Beta graphics drivers was released.

His quad cpu processor is an Intel Q6600 @ 2.4 ghz which cost ~500 $:
http://www.intel.com/buy/desktop/boxed- ... 80562Q6600
but it is cheaper than a dual core processor, an Intel X6800 @ 2.93 Ghz which cost ~1000$ :
http://www.intel.com/buy/desktop/boxed- ... 00&fmlid=0

There is also an very expensive quad cpu: Intel Qx6700 @ 2.66Ghz which cost also ~1000 $....:
http://www.intel.com/buy/desktop/boxed- ... 00&fmlid=1

I think these processors are not real a "true" quad cores processor because they use 2 dual cores in the same die.

PS: My processor (see my signature) cost ~350 $ currently:
http://www.intel.com/buy/desktop/boxed- ... 00&fmlid=3

The price in itself DOESN??T MATTER.Because I don??t have even have half of this money.And I should also change the motherboard and RAM memory...
The problem is that the programs are each time,more and more,optimized to dual core and above and probably Celestia won??t be a exception.
Although,I think this will take time,will be sooner than the time I can buy a better computer,around mid 2008 and later...so,soon,Celestia will be too HEAVY a program,because almost all developers have ABSURD computers and the Celestia code will be optimized to THESE computers.It??s a pity...

Fightspit wrote:

danielj wrote:UNBELIVEABLE.Darkmiss has a QUAD CPU!!
Soon,only ME will have a single CPU,1 gig and a modest video card and I won??t be able to run Celestia DECENTLY any more.It??s not FAIR...

Darkmiss wrote:Im not sure what the fuss is about vista.

I have been running Celestia Perfectly since Vista's Launch.
Or at least since the 2nd set of Beta graphics drivers was released.

His quad cpu processor is an Intel Q6600 @ 2.4 ghz which cost ~500 $:
http://www.intel.com/buy/desktop/boxed- ... 80562Q6600
but it is cheaper than a dual core processor, an Intel X6800 @ 2.93 Ghz which cost ~1000$ :
http://www.intel.com/buy/desktop/boxed- ... 00&fmlid=0

There is also an very expensive quad cpu: Intel Qx6700 @ 2.66Ghz which cost also ~1000 $....:
http://www.intel.com/buy/desktop/boxed- ... 00&fmlid=1

I think these processors are not real a "true" quad cores processor because they use 2 dual cores in the same die.

PS: My processor (see my signature) cost ~350 $ currently:
http://www.intel.com/buy/desktop/boxed- ... 00&fmlid=3

Daniel,

We have a saying in my country (The Netherlands):
"Op een oude fiets moet je het leren."

Loosely translated it says "You'll have to learn it on an old bike."

Obviously it means that young people often don't have admission to the latest and greatest (because of their income for instance) but they'll will (and have to) learn a lot by using older and cheaper methods and tools.

A related saying in German (In der Beschr?¤nkung zeigt sich erst der Meister) tells us that any real "artist" or "master" if you will, still is capable of creating great things with very limited means.

After having learned to be great, you'll slowly gain some more economical power and freedom to do as you please. If this means buying an expensive and powerfull Celestia rig, so much the better for you!

As a side note. The Dutch saying (the first) is often used in a context related to young people and their first sexual experience(s).

julesstoop,

I am not even going to touch the last part of your coment, but it sounds interesting to say the least.

danielj,

I am sure that Celestia like most new programs will still function fine on a single CPU, as the CPU isn't the most important thing for Celestia's secsesful running. I am sure when Chris gets around to coding for mulpitle CPU cores he sill build in auto-detecting code that will use said multi-core when available. Other wise Celestia would always be set as default for a single core. So I think there is still a little life left in your computer.

Don. Edwards

danielj wrote:UNBELIVEABLE.Darkmiss has a QUAD CPU!!
Soon,only ME will have a single CPU,1 gig and a modest video card and I won??t be able to run Celestia DECENTLY any more.It??s not FAIR...

Sorry

The problem is that running Celestia with default textures or in the ultra low DON??T INTERESTS ME.Probably I will give up if I can??t update Celestia frequently.It??s a shame that this transition to multi core CPU are being done so FAST.I CAN??T AFFORD IT...

Don. Edwards wrote:julesstoop,

I am not even going to touch the last part of your coment, but it sounds interesting to say the least.

danielj,

I am sure that Celestia like most new programs will still function fine on a single CPU, as the CPU isn't the most important thing for Celestia's secsesful running. I am sure when Chris gets around to coding for mulpitle CPU cores he sill build in auto-detecting code that will use said multi-core when available. Other wise Celestia would always be set as default for a single core. So I think there is still a little life left in your computer.

Don. Edwards

danielj wrote:The problem is that running Celestia with default textures or in the ultra low DON??T INTERESTS ME.Probably I will give up if I can??t update Celestia frequently.It??s a shame that this transition to multi core CPU are being done so FAST.I CAN??T AFFORD IT...

Please, stop it.

In my main Desktop, I have a single P4 CPU 3.2GHz, which is amply enough for quite a while to come. As you know in this machine I have a MUCH older graphics card as you have: FX 5900Ultra, which works fine and fast.

I have that machine since a considerably longer time than you have yours. So what is all this whining about??

Of course, if people want to vaste resources, then instead of the FAST and stable LINUX or Win XP, they pump their machine full with the unstable VISTA. In the latter case you need a faster machine soon, since VISTA alone requires a lot of power.

But note well: that's NOT due to Celestia.

Bye Fridger

Daniel: you can always do what I did.

I got so fed up with all problems related to Vista that I through it out the window..
I installed Ubuntu and I regret I haven't done that years ago. The last time I 'tried' Linux was when Red hat just arrived and I had to compile the kernel for every little change I did...

Whose times has passed. I feel that Linux is a grown up OS with may similarities to Amiga OS which I really enjoyed back in those days.

Now I'm quite confident that I'll stick to Linux from now on.. This, for me 'new' OS has blown some fresh winds into my life... I actually enjoys this OS in a way I thought wasn't possible since the Amiga died..

Cheers, Anders

tech2000 wrote:I got so fed up with all problems related to Vista that I through it out the window..

Very nice ...

danielj wrote:The problem is that the programs are each time,more and more,optimized to dual core and above and probably Celestia won??t be a exception.

dalnielj, there is no such thing as "optimized for dual core." A program can be multi-threaded to take advantage of multi-core architechture, but that won't make it any less performant on single core CPUs. Multi-threading has existed long before multi-core architectures and is commonly used to improve reponsiveness of programs regardless of the number of cores or CPUs.

Celestia is not multithreaded yet, which means that it will run at the same speed on a single, dual or quad core CPU as long as it is the only task running on your system.

We do plan to introduce multi-threading but mainly to reduce I/O latencies (texture loading, net access). This will bring benefits to all users, multicore as well as single core owners.

t00fri wrote:Of course, if people want to vaste resources, then instead of the FAST and stable LINUX or Win XP, they pump their machine full with the unstable VISTA.

tech2000 wrote:Daniel: you can always do what I did.
I got so fed up with all problems related to Vista that I through it out the window..

How did DanielJ's unbelievable rants about Celetsia using Multi CPU cores, turn into vista bashing ? and why ?