EVE Search - Anybody tried EVE on Windows 7?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Anybody tried EVE on Windows 7?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jambidaya	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:44:00 - [1] Just wondering, thinking of putting windows 7 on my laptop (cant stand vista) and was wondering if anybody has had experience with playing eve on windows 7. thanks!
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp KenZoku	Posted - 2009.04.24 23:54:00 - [2] Works fine アニメ漫画です
ZinderX500 Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:25:00 - [3] Originally by: Jambidaya Just wondering, thinking of putting windows 7 on my laptop (cant stand vista) and was wondering if anybody has had experience with playing eve on windows 7. thanks! Vista are just fine. Just like Windows 7.
Cat o'Ninetails Rancer Defence League	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:38:00 - [4] I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... visit my blog for my adventures
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:40:00 - [5] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... This joke is older than you are. But by my calculations that's not hard to achieve. ______________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
Neo Omni Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:42:00 - [6] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... Actually Vista is considered a side-grade....not better no worse just different.
Cat o'Ninetails Rancer Defence League	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:54:00 - [7] Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... This joke is older than you are. But by my calculations that's not hard to achieve. It would be great if it were a joke huh. I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, use the internet etc. XP is just solid is all. visit my blog for my adventures
Obsidian Dagger Weak and Fee-bile	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:56:00 - [8] Works fine on Windows 7. Vista IS a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet. I've been running the 7000 beta for a few months and I a: Like it better than any version of Vista and b: Like it almost as much as XP. Why dont I just USE XP still? DX10. I likes my ingame shinies and I get them on W7. XP = Awesome (ish - it's a M$ product after all) Vista = Blows big chunks then corrupts your hard drive. Windows 7 = Not even finished but better in every way than Vista. A good XP replacement.
starbreaker	Posted - 2009.04.25 00:57:00 - [9] Edited by: starbreaker on 25/04/2009 00:57:42 thinkin of doin the same thing I definately like xp more than vista, vista just has to go... I can install either xp or 7, so im figuring i'll give the 7 beta a shot and if it doesnt work, go xp.. Also want to see how 7 holds up with audio recording software, etc
Obsidian Dagger Weak and Fee-bile	Posted - 2009.04.25 01:01:00 - [10] It should be noted: Windows 7 IS BETA software. Some stuff is just plain not FINISHED yet and therefore not everything WORKS. Drivers can be a pain, although 9 times out of 10, the vista equivelant does work, the 10th time it falls over and dies horribly. But I expect that. Its not done yet. And it STILL works better than the supposedly completed vista.

Tramov	Posted - 2009.04.25 01:15:00 - [11] Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Works fine on Windows 7. Windows 7 = Not even finished but better in every way than Vista. A good XP replacement. I agree on that one ; just make sure you have a machine with plenty of memory. Windows 7 looks a lot nicer than XP, but after installing it you will be wondering what the big difference is, its just like XP. There isn't anything "new". I ran EVE on a Windows 7 machine for a while, and had maybe 1-2 mysterious crashes (which probably were driver issues) but other than that things ran smooth enough. But for seriously playing EVE I like XP better, less overhead = more memory & CPU for EVE.
Spurty Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.25 01:23:00 - [12] oh dear, so many people clueless about the actual technology in Vista and Win7, but so positively astute about how they feel about it ;0 Vista is just MS trying to force windows software developers to 'think' about security. Sadly, laboring under a misplaced assumption that anyone who buys their junk cares! Which is why, windows will remain the number one games platform! Setting file, account permissions correctly and knowing who is doing what on your computer is for the nerds. Remove all that junk, we demand speed ;0 Originally by: Infinity Ziona Thus I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
Obsidian Dagger Weak and Fee-bile	Posted - 2009.04.25 01:30:00 - [13] Eh? The security crap is the first thing to be killed on any installation of windows. Even XP had it's moments, and had them ruthlessly neutered by anyone with half a braincell. Failing to kill the M$ security crap is like, iunno, ratting in a .3 in a T3 ship fitted with random rat loot. The actual technology between Vista and W7 shares a number of core similarities, but they function very differently. (Otherwise there would be no issues with drivers etc). The hardware management is QUITE different, and I dont mean in the GUI.
Spurty Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.25 01:34:00 - [14] Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Eh? The security crap is the first thing to be killed on any installation of windows. This sentiment is 'Wrong', but almost 100% how people feel about their beloved gaming OS ;0 No, I'm not attacking you. You are part of the 'immovable object' that MS crashed into and burned lol. Originally by: Infinity Ziona Thus I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
Obsidian Dagger Weak and Fee-bile	Posted - 2009.04.25 01:41:00 - [15] Microsoft, one of the largest corporations on the planet, who's business ethics and tactics make Goonswarm look like a bunch of pewling day old n00bs, meet... My frakking delete button! Do you have ANY idea how much of an operating system it is possible to delete before things start getting really weird? The way I had my old XP machine, it not only survived having its Boot.ini deleted, but it took a week for me to notice, and only because I was reading the error logs that day trying to find out what thing I had broken to turn my screen upside down. (No, it had nothing to do with the M$ keyboard shortcut, THAT didn't work at all anymore. Turns out that rewriting DLL's can have hilarious effects on your display output). I've not tried any of this on W7 yet, because I need it to work, and not randomly red screen and reboot.
Kara Mitsui The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2009.04.25 02:26:00 - [16] Meh, all this Vista hate is just hype, if you had actually tried it for a while and decided you didn't like it, then fine. I suspect most people who diss it, haven't. I installed Vista as soon as I could get a copy, and have been running Windows 7 since the free beta was announced, and the differences aren't that great. Certainly not enough for people to say 'Vista as crap but Windows 7 is great', that's just nonsense. I'm no MS fanboy but Vista was so much better than XP in so many ways it's just sad that people let themselves be brainwashed into using a 6-year-old OS when newer, better stuff is available. And, er, you don't have to pay the earth for it, if you know where to look. The only people I've seen with genuine problems with Vista were running some old or weird hardware configurations. I can understand people not wanting to upgrade hardware just to run Vista, but if that's the case, say 'Vista doesn't work with xxx and yyy hardware' instead of just slamming it. Anyway, I run multiple eve clients on Windows 7 without any problems, I actually have a 128gb SSD as my boot drive, and Eve is installed on it as well. It screams along. I also have two vid cards installed, a 9800gt and an 8800gt, each running a separate monitor, and Eve runs fine on both in windowed mode. I can't imagine you'd have any problems at all. The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result.
Cat o'Ninetails Rancer Defence League	Posted - 2009.04.25 02:33:00 - [17] Originally by: Kara Mitsui The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result. ripping off OSX is kinda a tradition with MS lol visit my blog for my adventures
Nyx Cyth	Posted - 2009.04.25 03:07:00 - [18] Originally by: Kara Mitsui Meh, all this Vista hate is just hype, if you had actually tried it for a while and decided you didn't like it, then fine. I suspect most people who diss it, haven't. I installed Vista as soon as I could get a copy, and have been running Windows 7 since the free beta was announced, and the differences aren't that great. Certainly not enough for people to say 'Vista as crap but Windows 7 is great', that's just nonsense. I'm no MS fanboy but Vista was so much better than XP in so many ways it's just sad that people let themselves be brainwashed into using a 6-year-old OS when newer, better stuff is available. And, er, you don't have to pay the earth for it, if you know where to look. The only people I've seen with genuine problems with Vista were running some old or weird hardware configurations. I can understand people not wanting to upgrade hardware just to run Vista, but if that's the case, say 'Vista doesn't work with xxx and yyy hardware' instead of just slamming it. Anyway, I run multiple eve clients on Windows 7 without any problems, I actually have a 128gb SSD as my boot drive, and Eve is installed on it as well. It screams along. I also have two vid cards installed, a 9800gt and an 8800gt, each running a separate monitor, and Eve runs fine on both in windowed mode. I can't imagine you'd have any problems at all. The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result. Vista is pretty poor, microsoft implemented security features with an extremely poor lifespan (that thing that pops up and asks do you want to allow? yeah you can already bypass that) and the massive use of resources, I still can't believe its the industry standard, I make a habit of asking for a refund for the software whenever I buy a PC/Laptop with anything past Windows XP on it I really dont think Microsoft have produced any good OS's. Many of their other pieces of software and Hardware are brilliant though, I have a mouse from them and its brilliant, extremely responsive with decent battery life and it was only ú15
Corr Armageddon Amarr	Posted - 2009.04.25 03:09:00 - [19] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... This joke is older than you are. But by my calculations that's not hard to achieve. It would be great if it were a joke huh. I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, use the internet etc. XP is just solid is all. But what would you have to yell at if vista didnt exist?
Dmian Gallente Gallenterrorisme	Posted - 2009.04.25 03:13:00 - [20] OP: The game is designed for Windows, so it runs well in XP, Vista and also in Windows 7 (which is an incremental upgrade to Vista.) ---- Originally by: Anne M. Lindbergh There is no sin punished more implacably by nature than the sin of resistance to change

UniToxic Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.25 03:30:00 - [21] Simple answer as many people above me have already said, yes Eve Online works fine on Windows 7. (as you can see in the following screenshot (note bottom right for the watermark); http://digitalinsomnia.co.uk/hosting/pictures/shauntaylor88/eveonline_windows7.jpg (Before any questions are asked, that isn't the default UI, I have a few 3rd party applications to recieve that final result) -- Initially everyone was jumping up and down and saying Windows 7 sweeps the feet from below Windows Vista. Which it initially did, however, what many people didn't take in account is that the vast majority of people done a fresh install, meaning there was no software clogging up the system. Now many people along with myself have been running Windows 7 for at least 4 months, by this time, we have the operating system full with all the junk we normally have. Therefore we can truely see how different it is under normal conditions. Some Differences between my 4 month old Windows 7 build (which isn't final) and my 6 month old Windows Vista install (all have almost identical software installed, similar registries, identical drives) in the same system which is a; CPU: Intel Core Duo Quad Core Q6600 (2.6ghz x 4) GFX: nVidia BFG 8800gtx OC (768mb) RAM: 8gb 1066mhz Corsair DDR2 HDD's: Seagate Barracuda 1tb 7200.11 Eve Online: (A typical "Kill XXX" T2 mission (about 10ships on screen firing)) Vista: 98fps - 42% Ram - 41% CPU Win 7: 106fps - 24% Ram - 27% CPU Counter-Strike Source: (A normal run on Office, 12v12) Vista: 78fps - 39% Ram - 39% CPU Win 7: 84fps - 26% Ram - 37% CPU As you can see there isn't really too much in it now most of the computer are clogged up with the normal crap, the main difference is how Win7 deals with memory, in Vista, it used memory and graphics power on all minimized windows, this was its flaw, and caused the "slower" operating times compared to XP and now Win 7. Windows 7 statistically compared to fresh installs of XP uses about 5% more power, but that is a small pay off, considering technology has improved ten-fold since the launch of XP.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.04.25 04:12:00 - [22] 9/10 people who hated Vista actually liked it when told it was a 'new operating system' in blind tests. Seems the most objectionable thing about it is the name, and that comes from people that don't run it. As soon as I turned off UAC it became 100x better than XP. The irony is that UAC is something other operating systems have been dealing with for years without the negative attention Vista got for it. I lament having to use XP at work still sometimes. Windows 7 hopefully people will actually make up their own minds instead of just being brainwashed.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.04.25 04:16:00 - [23] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... This joke is older than you are. But by my calculations that's not hard to achieve. It would be great if it were a joke huh. I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, use the internet etc. XP is just solid is all. You know you can turn that off, and that doing so only makes Vista slightly more secure than XP instead of way more secure. UAC != Vista, but UAC = where Vista got the rep from.
SpaceSquirrels Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.25 04:42:00 - [24] LOL first win 7 is vista with a few tweaks. Mostly security and a few UI stuff like the UAC. 2nd vistas security is better than XP's 3rd for all those that hate the POP UP UAC message would you like to etc..... you can turn that off quite easily and it's not some uber HAXORS work around it's an option. 4th the UAC was actually implemented not to stop dumb dumb average joe customers, but bad programmers that could possibly implement controls and work arounds in bad places due to mistakes/negligence. 5th all you anti MS people/fear of the man. Gave right into the other man "steve jobs/mac" via their add campaign and because someone else told you vista was no bueno and macs are superior in every way possible. Macs are better at some things and PC's are better at others. Christ do some research and think for your selves. So yes win 7 does work fine...because it's already an OS called vista.
Benzaiten Reverse	Posted - 2009.04.25 05:07:00 - [25] Originally by: Lord Fitz 9/10 people who hated Vista actually liked it when told it was a 'new operating system' in blind tests. Seems the most objectionable thing about it is the name, and that comes from people that don't run it. As soon as I turned off UAC it became 100x better than XP. The irony is that UAC is something other operating systems have been dealing with for years without the negative attention Vista got for it. I lament having to use XP at work still sometimes. Windows 7 hopefully people will actually make up their own minds instead of just being brainwashed. I was one of 1st to try Vista and runned it for over year and me as windows administrator almost throw my PC out of window during 1st week. I gues vista was not that bad for average user that just run few programs at a time on it, but memory management on it was rely terrible and you notice it slowing down over time (4GB ram and 4.6GB paging file used once ) compared for average 1.5-3GB of memory and no paging at all in W2003. I dont even mention really poor HW implementation in vista like slowing down disc controller speed from 492MB/s to purely caped 128MB/s (XP vs Vista) and graphic card running hot all the time. W7 seems to be much better then Vista so i will give it try once its finished.
Taedrin Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate	Posted - 2009.04.25 05:26:00 - [26] Edited by: Taedrin on 25/04/2009 05:26:16 Originally by: SpaceSquirrels LOL first win 7 is vista with a few tweaks. Mostly security and a few UI stuff like the UAC. 2nd vistas security is better than XP's 3rd for all those that hate the POP UP UAC message would you like to etc..... you can turn that off quite easily and it's not some uber HAXORS work around it's an option. 4th the UAC was actually implemented not to stop dumb dumb average joe customers, but bad programmers that could possibly implement controls and work arounds in bad places due to mistakes/negligence. 5th all you anti MS people/fear of the man. Gave right into the other man "steve jobs/mac" via their add campaign and because someone else told you vista was no bueno and macs are superior in every way possible. Macs are better at some things and PC's are better at others. Christ do some research and think for your selves. So yes win 7 does work fine...because it's already an OS called vista. Windows 7 is MUCH more optimized. Windows Vista is a lot more of a system hog than 7. First thing that is noticeable: Support for Windows 7 is a LOT better than Vista was when Vista was in beta. Vista had horrible driver support, especially for 64 bit systems. Windows 7 has the support that Vista was missing at that stage of it's life. This is mostly because Windows 7 did not change the driver model, so third parties don't have to make very many changes to their driver software. Second: Windows 7 has a lot more optimizations. Boot up does a lot more loading in parallel instead of sequentailly like Windows Vista does, so Windows 7 boots up several seconds faster than Vista on the same machine. It is significantly noticeable. Third: Microsoft has supposedly put a larger focus on speed and memory optimizations. Vista is well known for being a massive resource hog. Windows 7, on the other hand, is supposedly faster than Windows XP. I wouldn't know, as my computer is beefy enough that I can't tell the difference in speed between Vista and Win7. EDIT: As for the OP - EVE works flawlessly for me under Windows 7. As good if not better than it does in Vista.
Khan Soriano Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.04.25 08:34:00 - [27] Tis true, Windows 7 is the best thing since sliced bread. I use 7000 build (there are a lot newer available) and it performs on par with XP (provided you have semi-current hardware ie. 2 cores, lots of ram - all of that is cheap now). But 7 has few other things that make it better than XP: Nice UI - I really like it, this is the way it should work since Win 95, even taskbar grouping is nicer Customization to hidden icons - yes, you can finally define which should be visible or not DirectX 11 - No game uses it now but since DX10 is inside too you can enjoy your new shiny effects and performance More security - I'm no expert on OS security but some things made sense to me when they designed Vista and Win 7 is just better, so its safe to assume XP is less secure If your laptop can handle XP well enough I say give Win 7 a try. It's what Vista should be, a good continuation. ----- Arbitrator - Life & Death
ohhssnoess	Posted - 2009.04.25 08:55:00 - [28] Originally by: Lord Fitz Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... This joke is older than you are. But by my calculations that's not hard to achieve. It would be great if it were a joke huh. I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, use the internet etc. XP is just solid is all. You know you can turn that off, and that doing so only makes Vista slightly more secure than XP instead of way more secure. UAC != Vista, but UAC = where Vista got the rep from. You been under a rock for awhile right? Conficker anyone?
Hariya	Posted - 2009.04.25 08:57:00 - [29] Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Vista IS a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet. Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.25 09:42:00 - [30] The problem with UAC was that windows programmers (even at microsoft) weren't used to programming for use in sandboxed/limited mode. They had grown accustomed to having full admin rights to everything and thus did things that a normal, non-system-critical app had no business doing, which made UAC go bonkers. Making your program UAC aware is trivial. Making a program well-behaved in a limited-mode enivronment is trivial. Making a standard user app never trigger UAC is ridiculously easy. Windows programmers just didn't know what any of that meant and failed to grasp the entire concept. nix programmers had dealt with it just fine for the last, oh, 30 years, which is why the same functionality in OSX and Linux is so transparent. As a security measure, UAC was far from perfect — it wasn't much in the way of protection — but the fault was with the incompetent programmers rather than with windows. It was a move towards shedding a legacy mode of thinking and it's unfortunate that MS had to take the blame for something they actually did right… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki*

ZinderX500 Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.25 13:57:00 - [31] Edited by: ZinderX500 on 25/04/2009 13:58:02 Originally by: Kara Mitsui Meh, all this Vista hate is just hype, if you had actually tried it for a while and decided you didn't like it, then fine. I suspect most people who diss it, haven't. I installed Vista as soon as I could get a copy, and have been running Windows 7 since the free beta was announced, and the differences aren't that great. Certainly not enough for people to say 'Vista as crap but Windows 7 is great', that's just nonsense. I'm no MS fanboy but Vista was so much better than XP in so many ways it's just sad that people let themselves be brainwashed into using a 6-year-old OS when newer, better stuff is available. And, er, you don't have to pay the earth for it, if you know where to look. The only people I've seen with genuine problems with Vista were running some old or weird hardware configurations. I can understand people not wanting to upgrade hardware just to run Vista, but if that's the case, say 'Vista doesn't work with xxx and yyy hardware' instead of just slamming it. Anyway, I run multiple eve clients on Windows 7 without any problems, I actually have a 128gb SSD as my boot drive, and Eve is installed on it as well. It screams along. I also have two vid cards installed, a 9800gt and an 8800gt, each running a separate monitor, and Eve runs fine on both in windowed mode. I can't imagine you'd have any problems at all. The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result. This. Originally by: Lord Fitz 9/10 people who hated Vista actually liked it when told it was a 'new operating system' in blind tests. Seems the most objectionable thing about it is the name, and that comes from people that don't run it. As soon as I turned off UAC it became 100x better than XP. The irony is that UAC is something other operating systems have been dealing with for years without the negative attention Vista got for it. I lament having to use XP at work still sometimes. Windows 7 hopefully people will actually make up their own minds instead of just being brainwashed. And also this. Originally by: SpaceSquirrels LOL first win 7 is vista with a few tweaks. Mostly security and a few UI stuff like the UAC. 2nd vistas security is better than XP's 3rd for all those that hate the POP UP UAC message would you like to etc..... you can turn that off quite easily and it's not some uber HAXORS work around it's an option. 4th the UAC was actually implemented not to stop dumb dumb average joe customers, but bad programmers that could possibly implement controls and work arounds in bad places due to mistakes/negligence. 5th all you anti MS people/fear of the man. Gave right into the other man "steve jobs/mac" via their add campaign and because someone else told you vista was no bueno and macs are superior in every way possible. Macs are better at some things and PC's are better at others. Christ do some research and think for your selves. So yes win 7 does work fine...because it's already an OS called vista. And this.
Cerebus Alteri	Posted - 2009.04.25 14:03:00 - [32] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails Originally by: Kara Mitsui The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result. ripping off OSX is kinda a tradition with MS lol and mac rips stuff off windows all the time. pot and the kettle if you going to play that game which os stole what from the other they both have lifted or imitated features off each other.
Illwill Bill Svea Rike Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.25 14:04:00 - [33] Edited by: Illwill Bill on 25/04/2009 14:04:45 As others have stated, EVE runs well on Windows 7. I've had a few problems with video drivers, but that's not CCP's or Microsoft's fault. I've noticed a significant performance increase in Windows 7, both compared to XP and Vista, but I uninstalled it from my laptop, as the 3d-accelerated UI drains the battery fairly quick (the same applies to Vista with Aero enabled), and the new UI looks butt-ugly when i classic mode. Edit: We all know that Workbench was first with everything anyway, so stop debating! Originally by: CCP Zulupark WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
DarkOrb UK	Posted - 2009.04.25 14:37:00 - [34] Nice to know that eve runs on Windows 7à. Although Im a XP nut, and have made my own XP by deleting everything I donÆt need or useà currently ive got my XP OS disk down to 189mb and still learning about what else I can chuck from ità Long live XP! Oh! And EVE DarkOrb
Kaahles E3 Corporation New EVE Rising	Posted - 2009.04.25 14:41:00 - [35] No idea about the current beta version of windows 7 but I just read a few minutes ago that there will be some "advanced compatiblity mode" included in enterprises, ultimate and professional finals. It's called "XP Mode" and simulates a XP system using microsofts virtual pc 7 as a basis. It will replace the old compatiblity mode which never worked right from the start. So I guess if it's released yeah it'll work but right now? No idea. ----------------------------- OMG THE SKY IS FALLING! Contract me all your stuff so I can save it!
Dmian Gallente Gallenterrorisme	Posted - 2009.04.25 15:51:00 - [36] Edited by: Dmian on 25/04/2009 15:53:26 Well, the problem with XP is that it has been around for so long (almost 8 years!!!) that people don't remember how it was when it was lanched... Jeez! there's still people using Win 2K just because they didn't want to touch XP with a ten-foot pole, so they switched from 98 to the NT line of OSs. Most of the XP die-hards now are young people who practically got into the PC world using it and never switched from 98SE to XP. I've used classic Mac (Finder), Mac OS X, Windows from 3.11 onwards, Amiga OS, you name it... and I think Vista is not a bad system for new PCs with reasonable ammounts of RAM. Yes, Windows 7 will be better than Vista, but it wouldn't be possible without Vista. It uses the same Kernel and shares a lot of the same code. And Microsoft chose to release a different OS before fixing a system that was perceived as flawed, but if it wasn't for that decision Vista could have received all the fixes and improvements of Windows 7 in a SP and Windows 7 could have been released much later. The real problem is: if you are pretty fine with a 7 years old OS, should you upgrade? Do you really need the new OS? Why? While Vista works fine for me I don't see any improvement in the way I use my machine. I pretty much do the same I used to do with XP, and will probably be doing the same in Windows 7. I never had security problems, or performance problems. So I'm just upgrading for the fun of it, to put it in a way. I could probably had upgraded the GPU, added more RAM and I could have had the same results. ---- Originally by: Anne M. Lindbergh There is no sin punished more implacably by nature than the sin of resistance to change
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.25 16:32:00 - [37] I've tried to ditch XP for years, during Vista betas, upon release, one year in and then two years in when I upgraded to 6gb ram. Vista 64-bit was plagued with obscure kernel errors and RPC issues that gave me random BSOD. I don't think I've had more than 3 BSOD on XP in an install that was five years old. It ****ed me off to the point where I installed Win 7 build 7000 when it came out as my main OS and its been fine ever since. It might be more optimized than Vista, but I think people who claim its any sort of difference are just drinking the microsoft kool-aid. The performance differences between the three major microsoft OS are only subjectively felt on any decent computer. I don't know if Windows 7 is that much of an improvement over Vista either, it seems like the same crap. The contextual explorer bar is still there and can't be removed. I still feel the need to disable UAC, and the major taskbar changes still need to be reverted to an extent. Overall I don't care, as long as my hardware is utilized properly.
Kara Mitsui The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2009.04.25 18:57:00 - [38] Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Vista IS a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet. Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Welcome to idiot-ville, population... you. This isn't a mac v windows thread so I won't bother listing the functions that Windows has had for ten years that OSX still does not. There's dozens of them. The fact is, the both do the same thing, in different ways that suit different people doing different jobs. Smug superiority like that evident in your comment just makes you look dumb.
Hariya	Posted - 2009.04.25 19:33:00 - [39] Originally by: Kara Mitsui Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Vista IS a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet. Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Welcome to idiot-ville, population... you. This isn't a mac v windows thread so I won't bother listing the functions that Windows has had for ten years that OSX still does not. There's dozens of them. The fact is, the both do the same thing, in different ways that suit different people doing different jobs. Smug superiority like that evident in your comment just makes you look dumb. Saying that something is going to be sweet although it obviously is not is even more stupid.
Obsidian Dagger Weak and Fee-bile	Posted - 2009.04.25 19:45:00 - [40] Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Kara Mitsui Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Vista IS a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet. Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 Welcome to idiot-ville, population... you. This isn't a mac v windows thread so I won't bother listing the functions that Windows has had for ten years that OSX still does not. There's dozens of them. The fact is, the both do the same thing, in different ways that suit different people doing different jobs. Smug superiority like that evident in your comment just makes you look dumb. Saying that something is going to be sweet although it obviously is not is even more stupid. You're a towel!

Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.04.26 11:50:00 - [41] Originally by: Benzaiten Reverse I was one of 1st to try Vista and runned it for over year and me as windows administrator almost throw my PC out of window during 1st week. I gues vista was not that bad for average user that just run few programs at a time on it, but memory management on it was rely terrible and you notice it slowing down over time (4GB ram and 4.6GB paging file used once ) compared for average 1.5-3GB of memory and no paging at all in W2003. I dont even mention really poor HW implementation in vista like slowing down disc controller speed from 492MB/s to purely caped 128MB/s (XP vs Vista) and graphic card running hot all the time. W7 seems to be much better then Vista so i will give it try once its finished. I tend to run 3 copies of Eve, multiple copies of visual studio, SQL Server, Photoshop and over 100 firefox tabs quite regularly, memory management is excellent, it actually 'uses' the memory you have, and frees it up when it needs it, unlike XP which tends to dump memory to disk when you do not need it to, causing delays as you retrieve it back into memory even though you never really needed the space. All memory 'used' in Vista, is not a bad thing like in XP, it handles memory differently, it intentionally USES more memory, without running into the problem of not having any free when needed. If you actually read up on Vista's memory management before installing it you would know it was going to display a higher memory used figure, and that this was going to cause a performance increase, rather than decrease. I nearly threw Vista out the window the first week I got it, then I realised two things. 1) it was my new processor causing all the issues 2) UAC can be turned off (actually I knew this already but I really did 'try' to use it because of the security benefits). The backwards compatibility in W7 and IE8 is absolutely awesome, particularly IE8, if only they had done that for IE7 my job would be a hell of a lot easier.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.04.26 11:54:00 - [42] Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Vista IS a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet. Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it?
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.26 12:11:00 - [43] Originally by: Lord Fitz They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it? They should… Windows would benefit greatly from shedding a bunch of the legacy crap that's still in there, but people (including developers) aren't ready for it (UAC is a prime example). Inertia sucks… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Hariya	Posted - 2009.04.26 12:12:00 - [44] Originally by: Lord Fitz Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Vista IS a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ **** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet. Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it? Whoa... Talk about being misinformed
Miss Xoco Minmatar VR Corp Sovereign Technologies	Posted - 2009.04.26 12:20:00 - [45] Edited by: Miss Xoco on 26/04/2009 12:20:25 Originally by: Neo Omni Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... Actually Vista is considered a side-grade....not better no worse just different. I wouldnt consider it a sidegrade as Vista contains unique abilitys. Such as the DX10 and 30 bit color depth which is not possible on XP. However, from the "speed" Vista is slower, im not exactly sure why but Vista simply got a lot of additional datas and the hardware got much more work to do. Ingame however, Vista should be almost equal with the performance, at current time. It needed like 2 years to reach that state.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.04.26 14:13:00 - [46] Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Lord Fitz Originally by: Hariya Originally by: Obsidian Dagger Vista IS a downgrade in my opinion. But unless M$ ** up bigstyle, then Windows 7 is going to be freaking sweet. Yeah, it'll be roughly where Mac OS X and the best Linux distributions were in 2004 They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it? Whoa... Talk about being misinformed Irony. Originally by:** Tippia Originally by: Lord Fitz They're making all the software incompatible, limiting the set of hardware you can run and rearranging everything so no one can find it? They shouldà Windows would benefit greatly from shedding a bunch of the legacy crap that's still in there, but people (including developers) aren't ready for it (UAC is a prime example). Inertia sucksà Death to IE6 TBH. No but seriously, backwards compatibility is actually good, because it reduces the reluctance for people to upgrade. People have applications they have (badly) written, and if the new version can't support them, people don't upgrade, forcing developers to forever write for the old version too :( Which is horrible. Obviously there is then less incentive for developers to shed their legacy features, but still. IE8's backwards compatibility is absolutely awesome. You can't imagine how annoying it is to deal with browsers like Firefox that have no facility to deal with say version 2 doing things differently to version 3. IE at least you can 'work around' IE6, even if annoying to do. IE8 makes backwards compatibility with at least IE7 trivial.
Esharan Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.26 14:44:00 - [47] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... This joke is older than you are. But by my calculations that's not hard to achieve. It would be great if it were a joke huh. I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, use the internet etc. XP is just solid is all. Pro tip... Get skills.... Its easy to disable that feature! gg.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.04.26 14:57:00 - [48] Originally by: ohhssnoess Originally by: Lord Fitz Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails It would be great if it were a joke huh. I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, use the internet etc. XP is just solid is all. You know you can turn that off, and that doing so only makes Vista slightly more secure than XP instead of way more secure. UAC != Vista, but UAC = where Vista got the rep from. You been under a rock for awhile right? Conficker anyone? The exploit it used was patched 2 months before it existed, it's virtually impossible to get if you have Vista, it effects XP/Win2k and Windows 2003. Since vista updates itself and has built in defence against such things (defender) you have to pretty much deliberately install such things. If you're going to deliberately mess with your system to the point that you can get anything like this, you might as well install linux. Still it's interesting to see virus the effect such a tiny portion of machines still infect more machines than run alternative OS's. I personally know more people that have lost all their files not knowing what they're doing on their linux boxes (and yet they are employed administering them) then I know people who've lost anything through virus's on windows machines in the last 10 years. Quote: I'm just saying no thanks to asking for my permission every time I want to open a file, copy to a USB stick, The way you get Conficker naturally is by clicking to run the exe when you insert a USB stick with it on there. Point proven.
NeoTech Minmatar	Posted - 2009.04.26 15:18:00 - [49] Does Windows 7 support horisontal span? cus vista doesn't, and that is why i absolutely HATE vista. Currently running it and trying to persuade myself to getting xp again. Vista is in my oppinion, a huge downgrade from XP. I hope Windows 7 will be better than Vista.
SpaceSquirrels Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.26 15:54:00 - [50] ^^^^^ Once again win 7 is Vista with security tweaks and some ui improvements, and limited performance tweaks...keyword limited. Still going to require at least 2g or ram...really minimum of 4 if you're gaming..... dont complain you can get 4g's of ram for like 50 bucks nowadays. Not sure if they're bringing it back in 7 topic of much debate. Also has something to do with nvidia, and ati drivers or some such. _________________________ I disagree...

Sade Onyx	Posted - 2009.04.26 16:09:00 - [51] On my machine Vista64 runs Eve (and many applications) faster than it does with an XP installation, and windows 7 runs it at similar speeds (some games faster) but and looks and feels nicer than vista. I'll be looking forward to the retail
ZinderX500 Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.26 17:13:00 - [52] Originally by: Lord Fitz Death to IE6 TBH. No but seriously, backwards compatibility is actually good, because it reduces the reluctance for people to upgrade. People have applications they have (badly) written, and if the new version can't support them, people don't upgrade, forcing developers to forever write for the old version too :( Which is horrible. Obviously there is then less incentive for developers to shed their legacy features, but still. IE8's backwards compatibility is absolutely awesome. You can't imagine how annoying it is to deal with browsers like Firefox that have no facility to deal with say version 2 doing things differently to version 3. IE at least you can 'work around' IE6, even if annoying to do. IE8 makes backwards compatibility with at least IE7 trivial. Hey Mr. Pro Ever heard of "going with the standards" ?
Empyre Domestic Reform	Posted - 2009.04.26 18:59:00 - [53] Win7 is what was promised for Vista but never delivered on. Vista is another WinME, that is to say an OS they would like everyone forget they heard about or paid for. If Micro$haft makes good on a really good upgrade deal to make up for this (I'll give them my copy of Vista gladly) then I will embrace Win7.. it really is a nice OS from what I've played with in beta so far. I'm just not going to accept them selling me a $200 product and having it fail miserably every second or third generation. Vista gas gotten better, no doubt. I bought my first copy at release and nothing made me more angry than that PoS. Now it's relatively stable but still glitchy with some programs and it likes to dig into your hard drive platters and not go away, especially if you decide to just delete the windows directory. what the crap just happened?
Sjobba	Posted - 2009.04.26 22:27:00 - [54] Edited by: Sjobba on 26/04/2009 22:32:33 Originally by: ZinderX500 Originally by: Lord Fitz Death to IE6 TBH. No but seriously, backwards compatibility is actually good, because it reduces the reluctance for people to upgrade. People have applications they have (badly) written, and if the new version can't support them, people don't upgrade, forcing developers to forever write for the old version too :( Which is horrible. Obviously there is then less incentive for developers to shed their legacy features, but still. IE8's backwards compatibility is absolutely awesome. You can't imagine how annoying it is to deal with browsers like Firefox that have no facility to deal with say version 2 doing things differently to version 3. IE at least you can 'work around' IE6, even if annoying to do. IE8 makes backwards compatibility with at least IE7 trivial. Hey Mr. Pro Ever heard of "going with the standards" ? Yea. Are you seriously complaining about incompatibilities between Firefox versions, complimenting IE for compatibility?! WTF have you been smoking? Each version of IE (even minor versions) use different, non-standard rendering implementations, all of which are pretty much incompatible with each other, and at about the same level of technology the actual standards were 10 years earlier. The fact that they have finally managed to produce a browser that can render them all does not impress me. (It's their own messed up non-standard implementations after all.) If M$ had just followed the standard from the start, or just picked a single non-standard implementation for all it's versions, literally years of debugging, bug-hunting and writing workarounds to get things working on IE would have been saved. The amount of time I have wasted translating perfectly fine code into something that sad excuse for a browser can understand is astounding. ... Gahh, now I'm all ticked of again. Always happens when people start talking about IE Edit: And o yea, Windows 7 beats Vista by a very large margin. Tried it on my old laptop, which could barely even boot Vista... Almost runs as smooth as XP does. Driver support is kind of sketchy, but hey... it's only a beta. Can't expect it to be perfect yet. Haven't run into any major problems yet, but it doesn't seem to prompt you with 30 confirmation windows every time you move the mouse... which is a plus. And it seems to run most Vista compatible apps fine, so games and such should work OK. (Given that you can actually find proper drivers for you hardware.) Highly recommend people try it if they can. (Not that I would recommend using a beta OS on your main system.)
Rathelm	Posted - 2009.04.27 00:48:00 - [55] Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails Originally by: Kara Mitsui The new taskbar thing in Windows 7 is very nice. It's a bit of a OSX dock ripoff but there's nothing wrong with copying good design. It's better than MS deciding it had to be different and being worse as a result. ripping off OSX is kinda a tradition with MS lol Except for the part that MS OS has 80% of the market share and the Apple OS has about 10%.
Draeca Tharri and Co.	Posted - 2009.04.27 02:10:00 - [56] Originally by: SpaceSquirrels Still going to require at least 2g or ram...really minimum of 4 if you're gaming..... dont complain you can get 4g's of ram for like 50 bucks nowadays. I am complaining. No matter how cheap ram is, 2gb is way too much to be required and wasted on running the OS itself. I really wonder how much could be cut from that number by reducing the amount of useless crap running, or just by giving an option for advanced installation where you'd only have the really basic system installed and the power to choose what else YOU want to install with it. The power of today's average computer is still, and will always be a horribly bad excuse for not keeping it simple and clean.
Information Broker	Posted - 2009.04.27 02:23:00 - [57] Mac OSX and even for that matter Linux (Ubuntu) will ALWAYS be better than Windows. Reason? It plain out sucks. Enjoy the video and try not to contract conficker =) know I dont have to worry.
Taedrin Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate	Posted - 2009.04.27 02:28:00 - [58] Originally by: Draeca Originally by: SpaceSquirrels Still going to require at least 2g or ram...really minimum of 4 if you're gaming..... dont complain you can get 4g's of ram for like 50 bucks nowadays. I am complaining. No matter how cheap ram is, 2gb is way too much to be required and wasted on running the OS itself. I really wonder how much could be cut from that number by reducing the amount of useless crap running, or just by giving an option for advanced installation where you'd only have the really basic system installed and the power to choose what else YOU want to install with it. The power of today's average computer is still, and will always be a horribly bad excuse for not keeping it simple and clean. QFT - How much do we really need in an operating system? A process scheduler, hardware abstraction layer, kernel API and MAYBE a desktop environment to make managing files/applications easier... Everything else should be optional, TBH
Leon Caedo	Posted - 2009.04.27 03:03:00 - [59] I honestly don't understand why people feel 'cool' by bashing vista. No, you don't get to join the cool kids club just by bashing vista. I got vista after SP1, and I've never had any problems with it at all. Vista's search functions and networking is SO much better than XP. My laptop has XP and it randomly decides to (a) disappear from the network, (b) create its own network, and (c) actually appear on the network, but refuse to let me do anything with the files. On Vista, I've NEVER had networking problems. XP's networking is a nightmare. I also don't go with in 10 miles of the search functions on XP - unless I have nothing to do for 2 hours while it searches. On my vista desktop, its nearly instant. Vista is a memory hog though; XP is definitely more efficient at memory. But then again I have 64 bit and ram coming out of my butt, so its no bigy. I do agree that windows 7 is going to be kick a$$.
SpaceSquirrels Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.27 14:32:00 - [60] Lol @ the people and their ram complex... you need 4gb to run games nowadays @ any decent settings as is.... fail. _________________________ I disagree...

Sjobba	Posted - 2009.04.27 14:34:00 - [61] Originally by: Leon Caedo I honestly don't understand why people feel 'cool' by bashing vista. No, you don't get to join the cool kids club just by bashing vista. I got vista after SP1, and I've never had any problems with it at all. <snipped> If you have a computer that can run Vista smoothly, and your hardware has proper drivers (which is rarer than you'd think), then Vista isn't that bad. And of course it has more refined features than XP... new versions always do. What ticks most people of is that they re-arranged a lot of the UI (people hate changes... even good changes), and the added security features, which add a few hoops for people to jump through. Although, as has been mentioned earlier, a lot of the problems relating the the UAC was not really M$s fault, but rather incompetent programmers creating annoying applications. (Triggering useless security prompts) And, of course, being Micro$oft, they released it way to early, before they had a chance to refine it and streamline some of the performance issues... so early versions were just horrible in that respect. (SP1 helped a lot tho) Not to mention the defective (and ultimately pointless) genuine validation thing... they never learn, do they I like to think of the entire Vista thing as a Windows 7 public alpha program... after all, Windows 7 is what Vista should have been.
AmarrCitizen32897	Posted - 2009.04.27 16:57:00 - [62] Originally by: Blane Xero Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails I see no reason to downgrade from XP tbh... This joke is older than you are. But by my calculations that's not hard to achieve. lol, that made me laugh. I love the posts that begin with "hi cat here".
Threv Echandari Caldari K Directorate	Posted - 2009.04.27 16:59:00 - [63] Edited by: Threv Echandari on 27/04/2009 17:00:35 Edited by: Threv Echandari on 27/04/2009 16:59:50 I have the r7000 build and Eve runs OK as good as my XP build though there may be one or 2 hiccups. (e6600 4GB ram, Zotac 8800GTS) I have not loaded it down with all the stuff that I did my XP Machine. But that is by design. I had too much crap on my XP box and it was developing issues. (after several years of abuse). However Eve runs well with In-space FPW consistently above 126. However I have had some strange Stuttering effects that I'm not sure waht to make of. (avg FPSon the XP machin was 85 FPS and I was running the Cache file from a RAM Drive). I have yet to to do the RAM Drive Trick on Windows 7. as on OS even the Beta is superior to Vista. But that is expected. Waht most people realized that Vista is actully a subset of WIN 7 (as WIN 7 tech has been well underway). Pressure to release the Next Gen prompted MS to release a "Vista" version. (There are many difference that are under the hood and not noticable by the user). Though UAC was one thing they went over board with and Thankfully streamlined it in win7. (How come no one complains bitterly when Linux asks you to login as an admin to do some thing that requires Admin rights eve if you are logged in as root?? oh right Market share...lol) Anyways Vista is like Windows ME or NT.. It will be quickly forgotten and buried when 7 goes live. ---------------------------------------- Happiness is a Wet Pod
Empyre Domestic Reform	Posted - 2009.04.30 13:51:00 - [64] Originally by: Leon Caedo I honestly don't understand why people feel 'cool' by bashing vista. No, you don't get to join the cool kids club just by bashing vista. I got vista after SP1, and I've never had any problems with it at all. Yay for you, here's a cookie, but you're experience is not the norm. My system always has some of the best hardware and I always use the latest drivers and still see crashes with every configuration I've used. I've had Vista not even recognize a hard drive, ever and I'm still seeing crashes today with some games. City of Heroes won't go 2 or 3 hours without at least one crash, as does Crysis, Supreme Commander and even Eve sometimes, and there are more. I have none of those issues under XP, using the same installations of the games or new ones, it doesn't matter. Your experience /= everyone elses. Making those types of assumptions makes you hella cool, too. what the crap just happened?
Sjobba	Posted - 2009.04.30 18:07:00 - [65] Originally by: Threv Echandari [...]BTWHow come no one complains bitterly when Linux asks you to login as an admin to do some thing that requires Admin rights eve if you are logged in as root?? oh right Market share...lol[...] That's not even comparable to the UAC prompt spam that Vista users suffered. Not to mention that most Unix/Linux admins will probably appreciate the added security. Unix systems have had proper user control for decades, and most Unix/Linux/OSX distributions have streamlined the GUI (and the CLI) extremely well. Now that Microsoft has finally decided to add a proper user system to Windows, they've got some catching up to do. (W7 being a big step in the right direction.) And, by the way, if you are logged into a X session as root, your doing it wrong.
Gut Punch Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.04.30 20:21:00 - [66] I've been running 3 box clients on a 2.4GHz laptop with Win7 Beta since it was released. I've had no problems with the OS - and I actually like it better than XP. I can't wait until the RC comes out on May 5th. I'll be purchasing a copy of Win7, pending some fluke found in the RC, along with a new Core i7 desktop. Would highly recommend Win7 RC to people who still want to stick with XP.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.