Celestia Forums

Hi, will there be a 64bit version of celestia? (in a near future, like this year)
I mean, is anyone working on 64bit code at the moment?

Celestia already can compile and run on 64 bit systems. I know it's been run on a DEC Alpha under Linux. (Alphas are 64 bit computers and do not have a 32bit emulation mode.)

I haven't heard of anyone building it on other 64 bit systems, though.

What features would you expect a 64 bit version to provide that the current code doesn't?

Well, I don't actually know, but I think it'll run atleast a little bit smoother if it could use all 64 bit instead of the 32 it uses today.

Then it would be a nice thing to see a 64bit release to download too...
I mean for us who can't compile the sourcecode.

tech2000 wrote:Well, I don't actually know, but I think it'll run atleast a little bit smoother if it could use all 64 bit instead of the 32 it uses today.

Then it would be a nice thing to see a 64bit release to download too...
I mean for us who can't compile the sourcecode.

But this would imply that the developers use 64bit machines, which they don't with one exception. Pat Suwalsky, however, takes care of Linux. Since there are so many competing (and mutually incompatible) Linux distros, one 64bit Linux binary wouldn't help too much, would it?

The main factor as to smooth running is still a powerful graphics card with a modern driver.

Bye Fridger

Well, I could with your help and guidence compile the code on windows with an AMD64 3500. Are there any free compilers around that I could use?

And ofcourse, are anyone intrested in a 64bit version? If not, why bother.
Maybe not now, but Windows Vista is about to be released this year and alot of us (I think) will go 100% 64bit.

tech2000 wrote: Are there any free compilers around that I could use?

Please read the "sticky" postings at the top of this (Development) forum.

Sorry for being that blind.

Anyhow, are there any intrests in a 64bit version for windows?

why don't you get yourself a decent graphics card instead ??


problem solved

tech2000 wrote:Sorry for being that blind.
Anyhow, are there any intrests in a 64bit version for windows?

Tech2000, I've just buyed an Athlon 64 FX57 S. Diego processor, that I'm going to use with 64 bit WIN OS, so obviously I'm very interested on this development.
Moreover, and I apologize to whom doesn't agree on this, I'm sure that in the next future (very close to today), 64 bit will be the rule (there are already gossips about 128 bit OS systems!), not the exception, so why not start from the beginning, being ready for the further developments?
I remember when, many years ago, I was changing my PC, and my PC expert was trying to persuade me to buy a 40 MB HD (yes, 40 MB, it's not a mistake) instead of the 20 MB HD I was asking for, because my thinking was "I'll never be able to fill up such a giant HD!".
Things move in a hurry, and sometimes we risk to remain back.
Just a suggestion.
Bye and thank you for what (I hope) you'll do on the matter.

Andrea

64 bit proccessing is not a magic bullet, I have an AMD64 and I didn't notice any performance difference between linux 64 and linux 32. I even went back to a 32 bit OS, 64 bit support is simply not there for the time being from proprietary vendors (video codecs, flash, Java, etc...), and even some OSS (OpenOffice.org).

I'm sure all this will be ironed out in the next couple of years, but for the time being and unless you really need 64 bit (ie huge RAM requirements, heavy use of 64bit arithmetic, etc...) it's not worth it to be an early adopter.

Christophe wrote:64 bit proccessing is not a magic bullet, I have an AMD64 and I didn't notice any performance difference between linux 64 and linux 32. I even went back to a 32 bit OS, 64 bit support is simply not there for the time being from proprietary vendors (video codecs, flash, Java, etc...), and even some OSS (OpenOffice.org). .

Christophe, you are speaking of Linux, I'm speaking of Windows. I don't know Linux at all, but I know something of Windows 32 bit, and IMHO one of the worst Win 32 restrictions is the 4 GB HD Virtual Memory.
Win 64 Pro can handle up to 128 gigabytes (GB) of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, enabling applications to run faster when working with large data sets.
And if I understand correctly, Celestia needs generous quantities of both of them, obviously together with a fast HD and a very good Graphyc Card (BTW, someone has first hand experience with the nVidia 7800 GTX 512 MB?).

Christophe wrote:I'm sure all this will be ironed out in the next couple of years, but for the time being and unless you really need 64 bit (ie huge RAM requirements, heavy use of 64bit arithmetic, etc...) it's not worth it to be an early adopter.

I would not be so sure that things will be such a slow; I think that the 32-64 bit migration will probably occur at the end of this year, as soon as the various software factories will issue 64 bit drivers for their products (and I read that many, if not most of them, are already doing it).
Will see who is right but, anyhow, if tech2000 offers to start Celestia improvement to 64 bit, why stop him?
A bit of enthusiasm is of help, IMHO.
Bye

Andrea

Celestia needs a lot of RAM, but performance is probably a lot more sensible on VRAM than on system memory. 1 GB is huge and well enough.

Windows already ships in 64 bit versions, but I believe most userland stuff is still 32 bits, and it has some restrictions, from Wikipedia:

Nevertheless, the most recent documentation available from Microsoft states that the x87/MMX/3DNow! instructions may not be used in long mode.

And since compilers are probably not yet optimised to take full advantage of the additional 64 bit registers, switching a multimedia app to 64 bits on Windows probably incures a performance penalty, not gain.

With Vista being yet again delayed I wouldn't count on any improvement on this front in the next 12 months. See this blog to see what MS employees have to say about the sad state Vista is in, some even claim it will never be released.

Runs blazing fast on my Core Duo iMac.

Waiting for the 64 bit Mac OS GUI............. then it's really on, i guess.....