When will we see a 64-bit Football Manager?

[MelbVictory]

I might as well be reading ancient aramaeic

They must've been an advanced race - switching to 64bit on their old abacus 4 thousand years ago.

[MelbVictory]

We'll continue to monitor the stats that we receive regarding the systems that are being used to play Football Manager. When there's a high % of users on 64 bit OS's, we'll look at it. I would expect that to be at least 3 (more likely a lot more) versions away. At the moment, the % using is minimal, and as long as the game works fine (which is does) all can play. To support another OS natively with a new version of the game, and different coding needed, would be incredibly expensive (see all the discussions regarding Linux).

Same went for changing from CD to DVD, took a little while, made sure everybody had it. I personally like that freasoning; since i wouldn't buy a top end machine that readily.

[GillsMan]

and what hardware would this mythical system run on then?

If MS does proceed with a 128-bit OS (and bear in mind that's not official news, though it did come from one of their employees), believe me, the hardware would be around to support it.

I'm tempted to say that a 128-bit OS is absolute madness, and I can't belueve anyone would need it. But then, 5 years ago, I couldn't imagine ever needing more than 4GB RAM, 200GB HD, 32-bit OS, etc.

[Aim_Less]

Windows 8 will be 64bits and 128bits only , there wont be a 32bit version

next year AMD will release its new processor the "bulldozer" (codename) it will be the first commercial 128 bits processor

most of you guys have wrong ideas about how things work its not just for ram usage, its for better and faster processing aswell the fact that, a 64bits program running on a 64bits OS and 64 Processor ( all processors today are 64bits) will run a lot faster than its 32bits version

, and all hardware will work with 128bits OS has long has it has drivers for it

Very Raw explanation of 32bits processing and 64bits processing works:

32-bit refers to the number of bits (the smallest unit of information on a machine) that can be processed or transmitted in parallel, or the number of bits used for single element in a data format. The term when used in conjunction with a microprocessor indicates the width of the registers; a special high-speed storage area within the CPU. A 32-bit microprocessor can process data and memory addresses that are represented by 32 bits.

64-bit therefore refers to a processor with registers that store 64-bit numbers. It doubles's the amount of data a CPU can process per clock cycle. witch leads to a performance increase because a 64-bit CPU can handle more memory and larger files.

also there are other advantages but most of them go unnoticed for the average user.you guys don't notice it but 32bits computing its reaching its limits

[JAT]

As for 64-bit FM, even a "crappy" 64-bit FM implementation should least 1.5 times faster than 32-bit FM. And because FM largerly is not real time based calculation (background matches etc), it should not be hard to get 3 times more speed. This is something we should hope. And for those who do not have 64-bit OS's, well, they can use 32-bit FM. It is really not that hard to make 64 bit and 32 bit versions of same program. Of course it makes some more work but FM supports MAC and PC, something that also requires extra work.

As for 128 bit Windows, there are really no valid points to release one.

First, neither AMD on Intel have plans to release natively 128 bit mainstream processor (we had 64-bit non mainstream processor earlier) in 5 years time. AMD Athlon64 came public 2003 and from Microsoft it took 4 years to get 64-bit OS (not just 64-bit test platform) on market (Windows Vista 64-bit). So with no native processor support, why to release 128-bit OS? Of course some instructions already are 128 bit, SSE for example, but they can be used in 32-bit Windows XP so no problem here.

As for addressing memory, well, 16-bit address space is 64 kilobyte, 32-bit address space is 4 gigabytes, but 64-bit address space is 18 446 744 073 709 551 615 bytes, that is 16777216 terabytes or 16384 petabytes or 16 exabytes.

In fact, some "supercomputers" are are expected to have "some petabytes" of total memory, there is still room for 1000 times improvement if all memory are addressed at same time.

Natively 128 bit OS will be needed in mainstream on about 2030 if we assume that Moore's law is somewhat valid in this case.

[Blanchflower1]

Windows 8 will be 64bits and 128bits only , there wont be a 32bit version

next year AMD will release its new processor the "bulldozer" (codename) it will be the first commercial 128 bits processor

most of you guys have wrong ideas about how things work its not just for ram usage, its for better and faster processing aswell the fact that, a 64bits program running on a 64bits OS and 64 Processor ( all processors today are 64bits) will run a lot faster than its 32bits version

, and all hardware will work with 128bits OS has long has it has drivers for it

Very Raw explanation of 32bits processing and 64bits processing works:

32-bit refers to the number of bits (the smallest unit of information on a machine) that can be processed or transmitted in parallel, or the number of bits used for single element in a data format. The term when used in conjunction with a microprocessor indicates the width of the registers; a special high-speed storage area within the CPU. A 32-bit microprocessor can process data and memory addresses that are represented by 32 bits.

64-bit therefore refers to a processor with registers that store 64-bit numbers. It doubles's the amount of data a CPU can process per clock cycle. witch leads to a performance increase because a 64-bit CPU can handle more memory and larger files.

also there are other advantages but most of them go unnoticed for the average user.you guys don't notice it but 32bits computing its reaching its limits

Are you sure that "Bulldozer" would be a 128 bit processor? Is this confirmed? Then it is only logical that Windows 8 would also be a 64 bit and 128 bit OS.

[Aim_Less]

yes i am sure its being used to test windows 8 kernel ( windows engine basically ) compatibility layer with 128bits , windows 8 will be released in 2012 ( according to a Microsoft road-map )

amd is testing 128bit computing since 2006 if memory serves

[eaglealan64]

a 64bits program running on a 64bits OS and 64 Processor ( all processors today are 64bits) will run a lot faster than its 32bits version

Actually for most things you do an end user won't notice the improvement due to network and hard disk constraints.

and all hardware will work with 128bits OS has long has it has drivers for it

lol. The point is that 128bit hardware isn't available yet, 64bit is only just starting to take off. 128bit is a long off for the mass market.

[JAT]

yes i am sure its being used to test windows 8 kernel ( windows engine basically ) compatibility layer with 128bits , windows 8 will be released in 2012 ( according to a Microsoft road-map )

amd is testing 128bit computing since 2006 if memory serves

Currently AMD processors support 48 bit address space. While not fully supporting 64 bit address space, there is really no need for 128 bits.

According to rumours, Bulldozer may have some 128 bit FPU units, but that does not make processor fully "128-bit". If it also has 128 bit general purpose registers, we may talk about 128-bit processor. With no need for even 64-bit address space, 128 bit is just overkill.

And for 128 bit computing, we have had it for years.

This is only how we define "128 bit" processor and OS. Windows 7 Professional for example supports 192 gigabytes of memory, that is very far from 64 bit address space, so can we say that Windows 7 Pro is 64-bit capable? It is, but it does not offer almost anything 64-bit gives possibility on memory size (compare to 32-bit XP, that supports nearly 4 gigabytes, whick is theoretical maximum).

[JAT]

Actually for most things you do an end user won't notice the improvement due to network and hard disk constraints.

Actually SSD-disks are quite fast already and secondly, most time FM (on me) is not using hard disk very intensively when counting backgound matches.

[eaglealan64]

It is really not that hard to make 64 bit and 32 bit versions of same program.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Aim_Less]

JAT Microsoft confirmed its using bulldozer for it , if it didn't support 128bits what would be the point on using it to test windows 8 compatibility layer with 128bits?

even if we don't need its coming ,

there is a lot more to processing than just memory address space, and of course we have 128bits for years but nothing on a commercial level available to the consumer

[Machetero]

Windows 8 will be 64bits and 128bits only , there wont be a 32bit version

So what? Vista was available int 64bit and I had it on my note. Pure crap XP with 3d service pack worked much better. And who cares whether there are 64bit OS, or no, when those 64bit OS are not stable?

Win7 is slightly better, though.

next year AMD will release its new processor the "bulldozer" (codename) it will be the first commercial 128 bits processor

It will take quite a lot of time for people to move to 64 bit - Win7 still needs updates.

With MAC OS it's easier:)

[JAT]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

What is hard and what is not. I did not say it is just few seconds work. There are many 64-bit applications already on market, many are non commercial, so it is far from impossible to make commercial 64-bit products. There were also many 64-bit games on market some years ago. I think that main reason is that "most people have 32-bit OS and no reason to make 64-bit version". It is also not so easy to make MAC-version of FM, if not using emulator, "writing pure MAC-code" as somebody from SI Staff said.

So if I had a choice, I'd rather make 64-bit FM and not waste resources to write pure MAC-code.

Limited resources yes, but where to put them? Installer, writing pure MAC-code, 64-bit? I would chose 64-bit.

I even say that FM should be made 64-bit only. If your processor or OS is not capable to handle 64-bits, then your machine is just too slow for FM. Rough talk yes but sometimes you just need to abadon old to get new one. This will not happen because too many people use XP, I know.

Of course, Microsoft is one to blame here. It was very stupid to intruduce 32-bit Vista and 32-bit Windows 7 is just unbelievable stupid product. Those processors without 64-bit support were too slow for Vista anyway, so XP should have been for them. Vista 64-bit only and wellcome 64-bit software. Or at least Windows 7, but no. Maybe Windows 8 supports 32 bit also, that would be veeeery nice.

JAT Microsoft confirmed its using bulldozer for it , if it didn't support 128bits what would be the point on using it to test windows 8 compatibility layer with 128bits?

even if we don't need its coming ,

there is a lot more to processing than just memory address space, and of course we have 128bits for years but nothing on a commercial level available to the consumer

Ok, if that is true, then we actually may have Windows 8 128 bit, cannot see any reason for that, though.

But we should remember that XP successor was supposed to be released on 2003, it came 2007, so Microsoft simply cannot be trusted in these "Windows X has feature Y" -cases. Even Windows 7 is missing many features Windows Vista should have contain.

Whatever this case actually is, I really hope for 64-bit FM.

[Aim_Less]

@Machetero you have no idea of what your talking about , Vista64 was way way more stable and faster than its 32bit version , maybe the crap was your laptop specs , and for ffs of course it run better comparing a freaking 9 year old OS with a new one its dumb

[Ter]

I even say that FM should be made 64-bit only. If your processor or OS is not capable to handle 64-bits, then your machine is just too slow for FM

Thank goodness you don't make those kind of decisions here or we would all be looking for a new job soon.

[Aim_Less]

Thank goodness you don't make those kind of decisions here or we would all be looking for a new job soon.

you do realize at all processors are 64bits since 2003 , even the nintendo 64 and PS2 had 64bits processor before commercial cpu's and intel released 64bits processor for high end servers in 2001

[djwilko6]

So what? Vista was available int 64bit and I had it on my note. Pure crap XP with 3d service pack worked much better. And who cares whether there are 64bit OS, or no, when those 64bit OS are not stable?

Wrong, Vista and Win7 64-bit have been running STABLE on 3 different machines I've built over the last 2 years.

Win 7 (Professional if you're interested) is of course what Vista should have been, and is leaps and bounds ahead of Vista, and even XP.

The problem is a mix of people like you scare-mongering (usually Linux/MAC fans), and Microsoft not letting developers see Vista early enough, which led to lots of driver problems and devices not working. Win7 has none of these problems and even has XP built in (well through VirtualPC iirc)

Technology is constantly getting better, and evolving, you either move with the times or stay stuck in the past, yes XP was awesome, Win7 tho is the future. For 3 years at least

[Ter]

you do realize at all processors are 64bits since 2003 , even the nintendo 64 and PS2 had 64bits processor before commercial cpu's and intel released 64bits processor for high end servers in 2001

You have to remember that FM isn't your typical game where the users are up to date with the latest software or hardware. You probably noticed how many people couldn't and still can't use the 3D match engine for example.

We've always tried our best to support as many setups (both old and new) as we can and changing to a 64-bit only version would force a lot of these users to upgrade their system/software or not buy the game at all.

[666aaaaaa]

could both 32bit and 64 bit versions be released next year, 32 bit costing say 25GBP and the 64bit version 55GBP or more

[Elmo]

What are the benefits of a 64bit game?

[Aim_Less]

i am aware of that TER , but making a 64bits version its not that hard ask crytek and it can be shiped with the 32bits version its a matter of making different binaries , it doesn't require coding the full game for 64bits .

@666aaaaaa with that price diference it would fail ,crysis warhead and crysis were released with both versions in same dvd , and its just some extra binaries it doesn't justify that freaking price difference

@Elmo basically better ram usage and faster processing

[neutral]

Same like 3D, peoples will crucify FM for changing it to a 64bit game..

[JAT]

You have to remember that FM isn't your typical game where the users are up to date with the latest software or hardware. You probably noticed how many people couldn't and still can't use the 3D match engine for example.

We've always tried our best to support as many setups (both old and new) as we can and changing to a 64-bit only version would force a lot of these users to upgrade their system/software or not buy the game at all.

Too bad but I have to agree with this. 64-bit support should be available on every consumer processor these days and also 32-bit Vista and Windows 7 should not be available at all. That is not SI Games' fault and that is why I cannot really blame SI Games for not making 64-bit FM 2010.

Still, this situation, you know, (add some harsh words here).

[Aim_Less]

thats why Microsoft decided to force 64bits with next windows version JAT

[JAT]

thats why Microsoft decided to force 64bits with next windows version JAT

Well, actually no. It should have been done on Vista. But well, better later than never if this holds true.

[Grecian_03]

FM is RAM intensive, SI need to make a 64-bit version sooner rather then later because each version uses more and more RAM. I've had to cut down on FM10 from what I've used on FM09 just to make it playable and not crash so often but it's not the same, it's killed any hope of a long term career game. Especially a journeyman career hopping from league to league.

32-bit is the past, time to move on with the times.

[Machetero]

Wrong, Vista and Win7 64-bit have been running STABLE on 3 different machines I've built over the last 2 years.

Win 7 (Professional if you're interested) is of course what Vista should have been, and is leaps and bounds ahead of Vista, and even XP.

The problem is a mix of people like you scare-mongering (usually Linux/MAC fans), and Microsoft not letting developers see Vista early enough, which led to lots of driver problems and devices not working. Win7 has none of these problems and even has XP built in (well through VirtualPC iirc)

Technology is constantly getting better, and evolving, you either move with the times or stay stuck in the past, yes XP was awesome, Win7 tho is the future. For 3 years at least

You see, I'm to MAC or (especially) Linux, I stick to things that actually work. Without much pain in ass or wasting my time.

We've soldered our first computer (ZX SPectrum) with my elder brother back in 1991 (still late USSR times:) full of fun). So I clearly understand how things changed over these years. My brother is an Acer Computers exec. now and even he admits that XP was the best and the most stable system MS created over last 10 years.

I had VISTA Ultimate edition on my PC laptop.

(Processor 2.3GHz AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-66

Memory 4GB of 667MHz

Hard drive 250GB at 5,400rpm

Graphics 256MB ATI Radeon X1270)

The whole thing was a bug.

WIN7, which I used for half a year is much better, but I can't call it a real solution or way out from where

MS got us with VISTA, compared to XP...

Now I've moved back to MAC, waiting for better times.

And yes, I support moving from 32bit to 64bit architecture and programming, BUT I sincerely against SIGAMES guys wasting their time on 64bit version in forthcoming 2-3 years. At least.

P.S. Please note that many people use notebooks to have some FM time, not workstations (acquired or built) and that's a totally different issue.

[Golaxi]

If MS does proceed with a 128-bit OS (and bear in mind that's not official news, though it did come from one of their employees), believe me, the hardware would be around to support it.

I'm tempted to say that a 128-bit OS is absolute madness, and I can't belueve anyone would need it. But then, 5 years ago, I couldn't imagine ever needing more than 4GB RAM, 200GB HD, 32-bit OS, etc.

yes the software will get much more hungry.

[JAT]

P.S. Please note that many people use notebooks to have some FM time, not workstations (acquired or built) and that's a totally different issue.

Almost every laptop processor, except totally crap ones that cannot run FM 2010 anyway, support 64-bit. 64-bit processor support has been mainstream on laptops many years. Your laptop processor supports it too.

So I cannot understand this point.

[Machetero]

Almost every laptop processor, except totally crap ones that cannot run FM 2010 anyway, support 64-bit. 64-bit processor support has been mainstream on laptops many years. Your laptop processor supports it too.

So I cannot understand this point.

My point is that not everybody has PCs with 2-4+ RAM and the latest processors and while WIN7 is a nice thing, quite a lot of people stick to XP (accroding to the recent surveys - up ro 65%). It's quite evident, that most Vista users will move to WIN7, but I doubt XP people to have the same zeal...

Thus, it's better to wait.

[Machetero]

UPD - most guys with XP have a 32 bit version.

[Bill Paisley]

not for a while yet i hope - i'm not one of these people who have a super computer as i simply dont care for or need a super computer, i need a laptop for a bit of surfing, a bit of music and FM, there's no way I would ever buy a new PC/laptop just to play one game.

i actually missed out on 08 and 09 as my laptop couldn't keep up with the changes SI made, it's only since I got another one free that I can now play the game.

you have to remember people's disposable income is not as high as previous years and if they did make this change, I would imagine a fair percentage of people just wouldn't bother. I know I wouldn't.

[Blanchflower1]

FM is RAM intensive, SI need to make a 64-bit version sooner rather then later because each version uses more and more RAM. I've had to cut down on FM10 from what I've used on FM09 just to make it playable and not crash so often but it's not the same, it's killed any hope of a long term career game. Especially a journeyman career hopping from league to league.

32-bit is the past, time to move on with the times.

I totally agree with you here! I hope SI makes the switch sooner rather than later!

[sergioma33]

i am 32 bit user and when i had a 64 bit version, i would want a 64 bit version of fm, at the moment keep on 32 bit please

[JAT]

My point is that not everybody has PCs with 2-4+ RAM and the latest processors and while WIN7 is a nice thing, quite a lot of people stick to XP (accroding to the recent surveys - up ro 65%). It's quite evident, that most Vista users will move to WIN7, but I doubt XP people to have the same zeal...

Thus, it's better to wait.

My point is that even 3 years old hardware is more than well enough to FM 2010. If you do not have enough money to buy used 3 year old computer, estimated cost for that computer is, well, 150-200 euros, then you should not have enough money to buy FM 2010 either. But maybe many people actually do not do it (forbidden discussing it here).

And yes, I'm using machine mostly based on 2005 technology, 64-bit and FM 2010 runs (no to say it can be faster) just fine

[Aim_Less]

i am 32 bit user and when i had a 64 bit version, i would want a 64 bit version of fm, at the moment keep on 32 bit please

care to elaborate why?

[djwilko6]

care to elaborate why?

Basically he's saying because he doesnt have 64-bit, he doesnt want a 64-bit version of FM. When he does get 64-bit tho, he wants FM to be 64-bit.

[Grecian_03]

It'd be perfectly doable for them to do both a 32-bit and a 64-bit, after all they already make a Mac version.

[Aim_Less]

Basically he's saying because he doesnt have 64-bit, he doesnt want a 64-bit version of FM. When he does get 64-bit tho, he wants FM to be 64-bit.

FM can come with both versions , they jus have tome make a diferent exe file and some binaries basicaly

[djwilko6]

FM can come with both versions , they jus have tome make a diferent exe file and some binaries basicaly

I know all this, you don't need to explain to me.

[Les Girondins]

I'm just wondering as manufacturers and developers are beginning embracing the 64bit architecture more, when will we see FM in 64-bit? Taking into account the database size, it will only be beneficial to the program?

Will SI try to implement it sooner or leave it till later? Or compile two flavours of Football Manager?

Any ideas or answers are most welcome

Brad

When the average user has 5gb+ of ram.

ie. not for YEARS.

[Drakestone]

Thanks for the response, Miles! So, we would be seeing a 64-bit Football Manager 2013 or FM 2014 very soon!

No you won't, the world's supposed to end in 2012

[Aim_Less]

When the average user has 5gb+ of ram.

ie. not for YEARS.

that's just BS

-.-"

Steam hardware survey

Less than 512 MB (-0.17%) 0.97%

512 Mb to 999 MB (-0.80%) 5.10%

1 GB (-1.11%) 13.34%

2 GB (+0.35%) 32.47%

3 GB (+0.48%) 28.89%

4 GB (+0.96%) 12.84%

again making a 64bits version wont affect the 32bits version dam why people talk crap without knowing facts

[JAT]

that's just BS

-.-"

Steam hardware survey

...

So like 80.59 percent have 2 GB RAM or more. And it is very likely that if you have 2 GB RAM, you also have 64-bit capable processor. Of course not all computer buyers are Einsteins. So this "many people have not good enough machines blah blah" seem to be mostly BS also. Especially if we consider 8 months later...

[djwilko6]

So like 80.59 percent have 2 GB RAM or more. And it is very likely that if you have 2 GB RAM, you also have 64-bit capable processor. Of course not all computer buyers are Einsteins. So this "many people have not good enough machines blah blah" seem to be mostly BS also. Especially if we consider 8 months later...

For once I'll have to disagree, I'd say only people with more than 3GB will have 64-bit, which is the only time you really need it.

[santy001]

Simple matter of fact is pretty much at the moment, from a financial position it's not justified right now. SI could have been releasing a 64 bit version as soon as 64 bit computers were available at a rather substantial cost. When the cost isn't as much, and it makes sense on the balance sheets and serves the majority of the gaming community.

I have 4GB of RAM, my PC isn't 64 bit compatable though - in fact, out of the 15/16 people I know who play FM. Only 1 has a 64 bit computer right now... won't be the same for all people but it shows that right now if the game went 64 bit that only 1 out of 16 would buy that version that I know of. If it went 64 bit only, well then £450 wouldn't be spent on the game.

[djwilko6]

Then you're PC is only using 3GB of that 4GB

[santy001]

Somewhere in the region of 3.6/3.7 of that the limit is a little bit under 4GB if memory serves right.

[Aim_Less]

@santy001

If your processor was built after 2006 its 64bits, all processors since are 64bit

there is no excuse that its not 64bit compatible . other hardware its compatible has long i has its drivers for it , its a matter of search

yet again i dont see why a 64bits version would stop a 32bits from working

@santy001 part 2 its 3.5