Will Celestia go 64bit?

The place to discuss creating, porting and modifying Celestia's source code.
Topic author
tech2000
Posts: 258
Joined: 14.02.2006
Age: 48
With us: 14 years 5 months
Location: Skepplanda, Sweden

Will Celestia go 64bit?

Post #1by tech2000 » 19.03.2006, 00:02

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?

Avatar
selden
Developer
Posts: 10136
Joined: 04.09.2002
With us: 17 years 10 months
Location: NY, USA

Post #2by selden » 19.03.2006, 01:48

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?
Selden

Topic author
tech2000
Posts: 258
Joined: 14.02.2006
Age: 48
With us: 14 years 5 months
Location: Skepplanda, Sweden

Post #3by tech2000 » 19.03.2006, 15:11

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... :D
I mean for us who can't compile the sourcecode.

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 18
With us: 18 years 4 months
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #4by t00fri » 19.03.2006, 15:39

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... :D
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

Topic author
tech2000
Posts: 258
Joined: 14.02.2006
Age: 48
With us: 14 years 5 months
Location: Skepplanda, Sweden

Post #5by tech2000 » 19.03.2006, 19:23

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. :roll:
Maybe not now, but Windows Vista is about to be released this year and alot of us (I think) will go 100% 64bit.

Avatar
selden
Developer
Posts: 10136
Joined: 04.09.2002
With us: 17 years 10 months
Location: NY, USA

Post #6by selden » 19.03.2006, 19:35

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


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

Topic author
tech2000
Posts: 258
Joined: 14.02.2006
Age: 48
With us: 14 years 5 months
Location: Skepplanda, Sweden

Post #7by tech2000 » 19.03.2006, 19:51

Sorry for being that blind.

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

Marsoups
Posts: 3
Joined: 26.03.2006
With us: 14 years 4 months

Post #8by Marsoups » 26.03.2006, 10:39

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


problem solved :P

ANDREA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 01.06.2002
With us: 18 years 2 months
Location: Rome, ITALY

Post #9by ANDREA » 26.03.2006, 11:03

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. :wink:
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? 8O
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!". :oops:
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 :D
Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 3.8 GHz- 8 GB DDR2
DELL 2709W 1920x1200- WIN 7 64 bit- ASUS P5K-E-
8800 GTX 768MB- 6xSATA II, total 7.5 TB-260.89- Celestia 1.6.1
Celestia1.4.1_patch3- Vincent's LUA Edu Tools 1.2

Christophe
Developer
Posts: 944
Joined: 18.07.2002
With us: 18 years
Location: Lyon (France)

Post #10by Christophe » 27.03.2006, 09:55

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

ANDREA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 01.06.2002
With us: 18 years 2 months
Location: Rome, ITALY

Post #11by ANDREA » 27.03.2006, 12:31

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. :D
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?). :roll:

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? :cry:
A bit of enthusiasm is of help, IMHO. :wink:
Bye

Andrea :D
Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 3.8 GHz- 8 GB DDR2
DELL 2709W 1920x1200- WIN 7 64 bit- ASUS P5K-E-
8800 GTX 768MB- 6xSATA II, total 7.5 TB-260.89- Celestia 1.6.1
Celestia1.4.1_patch3- Vincent's LUA Edu Tools 1.2

Christophe
Developer
Posts: 944
Joined: 18.07.2002
With us: 18 years
Location: Lyon (France)

Post #12by Christophe » 27.03.2006, 12:49

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.
Christophe

rwalt
Posts: 1
Joined: 23.04.2006
With us: 14 years 3 months
Location: Illinois

Post #13by rwalt » 23.04.2006, 19:39

Runs blazing fast on my Core Duo iMac.
20" iMac, Intel Core Duo 2GHZ, 1024MB SDRAM, ATI Radeon 256MB VRAM, OS X 10.4.6

Startyger
Posts: 39
Joined: 05.05.2002
With us: 18 years 2 months
Location: Hillside, New Jersey

waiting

Post #14by Startyger » 15.05.2006, 04:43

Waiting for the 64 bit Mac OS GUI............. then it's really on, i guess..... :-)
"then He smiled at me...pa-rump-a-pum-pum..... me and my drum"


Return to “Development”

Who is online