Notice: Any messages purporting to come from this site telling you that your password has expired, or that you need to verify your details, confirm your email, resolve issues, making threats, or asking for money, are
spam. We do not email users with any such messages. If you have lost your password you can obtain a new one by using the
password reset link.
Due to spam on this forum, all posts now need moderator approval.
Entire forum
➜ MUSHclient
➜ General
➜ MUSHclient usability in WinXP64
|
MUSHclient usability in WinXP64
|
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
| Posted by
| Seawolf
USA (57 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Tue 15 Mar 2005 03:18 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| I'm wondering if MUSHclient uses a 16 bit installer or not, as the upcoming x86-64 WinXP won't run those.
Thanks, have fun :) | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Flannel
USA (1,230 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #1 on Tue 15 Mar 2005 05:47 PM (UTC) Amended on Tue 15 Mar 2005 05:53 PM (UTC) by Flannel
|
| Message
| It uses the nullsoft installer, which I'm fairly certain is 32bit (yep, just checked to be sure). You can get the version number while installing if you want to check it out. (nsis.sourceforge.net)
However, Nick also provides the tar.gz for wine users, so if nothing else, you'll be able to unzip from that. |
~Flannel
Messiah of Rose
Eternity's Trials.
Clones are people two. | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Seawolf
USA (57 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #2 on Tue 15 Mar 2005 06:17 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| | Coolness. I'm going to be switching to it asap, so I was just makin sure my bases are covered :) | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Seawolf
USA (57 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #3 on Wed 23 Mar 2005 02:57 AM (UTC) |
| Message
| a native version would rock but it's probably about as likely as...the sky turning puke green and raining chunks...whee!
(I'm not on drugs, I'm just wierd.) | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Shadowfyr
USA (1,790 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #4 on Wed 23 Mar 2005 05:23 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| Don't know.. If Nick ever switched from the MFC libraries to something like Cygwin's, then not only might it be possible to compile a 64-bit version, but also, with a few changes, make a Linux version to. Though, it would probably work a tad slower. The priority for GCC and the Cygwin libraries haven't necessarilly been optimization. Besides, doesn't XP64 use two different versions, depending on the processor involved? That would make compiling it even more complicated, since the two processors are not compatible on a machine code level. However, ironically a native Intel64 compile using Cygwin may actually be faster than a 32-bit version running in Intel's emulation of 32-bit. lol On an AMD, that wouldn't be the case, since its native 64-bit also runs native 32-bit.
Definitely one case where Linux has the advantage, since as long as the coder didn't do something really stupid, such as assuming things like 'sizeof(integer)' will always be the same on every machine, damn near everything for it can be installed by compiling it for the processor(s) you are using. Windows stuff... They probably just charge you even more for privalage of you to picking which version you actually need. lol Assuming a 64-bit even exists for the product in the first place. Takes years to track down all those 'sizeof' errors their lazy coders introduced from one end of the source code to the other. ;) | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Seawolf
USA (57 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #5 on Wed 23 Mar 2005 06:30 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| ok you've been confused somewhere along the line
XP64 only has one version, because AMD64 and EM64T are the same thing....formerly x86-64 (x64 from now on)
Both run x64 the same way, whatever they decide to call it.
x64 doesn't support MMX or some other older features, so unfortunately some code just won't work when porting. So 'native 32-bit' isn't really true.
x64 has three modes...legacy mode (32 bit) compatibility mode (32 or 64 bit) and Long mode (64 bit only...) XP64 only uses Long mode.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index.x?pg=1 <- good new article on it | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Seawolf
USA (57 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #6 on Wed 23 Mar 2005 06:32 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| | Rather, it supports MMX and things in legacy mode, of course, and probably compatibility mode also | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Shadowfyr
USA (1,790 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #7 on Wed 23 Mar 2005 10:21 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| | Hmm. I thought Intel was still making the non-x86 compatible one, but come to think of it I believe I read a while ago that Intel realized it worked badly and licensed AMD's solution, so... | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Seawolf
USA (57 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #8 on Thu 24 Mar 2005 05:51 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| Yeah I was wondering if you were thinking of Itanium...
(sorry, I didn't get another topic reply notification so I assumed you hadn't replied)
Itanium doesn't really count...I don't think it'll ever make the consumer space. It's nowhere near good enough, and I wonder what crack they were smoking when they decided it was a good idea. (Of course, the specs for it were made over ten years ago, so that's probably where...quite a bit longer than ten, I'm sure, but I don't have the numbers in front of me.) | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Shadowfyr
USA (1,790 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #9 on Thu 24 Mar 2005 07:10 PM (UTC) |
| Message
| | Well... Technically a complete redesign is far better than gluing new extensions on an old set of opcodes. Makes things a damn sight less confusing for compiler developers or people trying to code Assembly for it too, but no one wants to have to abandon everything that still works in order to provide something that would truely blow everyones socks off. Instead, they shackle either emulations into it or add in new layers of complications into the design, so it runs almost as well as a pure 64-bit would, but still runs 32-bit native as well. Neither is the *best* solution, but it keeps the coders from the thousands of companies around making software from all pulling their hair out and making a mess all over the floors. ;) lol | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Seawolf
USA (57 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #10 on Fri 25 Mar 2005 02:24 AM (UTC) |
| Message
| | Well, that may be true, but that doesn't mean it was a GOOD redesign. The Cell processor sounds more to my liking. | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Seawolf
USA (57 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #11 on Fri 25 Mar 2005 09:57 AM (UTC) |
| Message
| Have an article (there're plenty around but hell I like this one, I've read them all among many months though so there may have been others i liked just as much) http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1/64-bits/index.x?pg=1
You can read how app benchmarks look now, how x64 cleans up x86 (additional registers, no x87, MMX, or 3dnow, and other stuff,) and stuff like that | | Top |
|
The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).
To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.
32,446 views.
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
![[Go to top]](/images/gototop.gif)
top