EVE Search - New computer

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

New computer - OS advice

» 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 - 1 post(s)
Nimrel	Posted - 2008.01.16 20:07:00 - [31] Edited by: Nimrel on 16/01/2008 20:13:01 I run Vista on all my home and work machines that aren't servers. I like XP too, but there are a lot of security changes in Vista -- some of them are visible (prompting for administrator access), some of them are not so visible (you're running as a limited user so it's extremely hard to get spyware), and some of them are completely invisible (there are around 15+ very important changes to how software is run that prevent most common security vulnerabilities that are exploited by hackers). If you do run Windows XP, be sure to run it as a limited user. This will get you about 75% of the protection from viruses and spyware that Vista has. Unfortunately, almost no-one does this. One reason is that most software (including Eve before Vista came out and forced the issue) would not run properly under a limited account (because almost no-one did, so almost no-one tested their software that way, chicken-and-egg problem). Vista has a whole bunch of 'workarounds' in it to allow software that breaks under a limited account in XP to think it's running under admin in Vista when it's not. This gets it a lot more application compatibility than XP running limited, though it's still not quite as good as XP running administrator. So if you really want your computer to run well over the long term because it has no viruses or spyware slowing it down and corrupting things, you choices are really XP as limited user or Vista. Between those two choices, Vista is a pretty clear winner. XP is still quite good, I ran it for 5 years using both limited and admin accounts with no anti-virus or spyware and never got a virus -- but I know what to avoid and my mom doesn't :-) Vista and XP limited are secure enough that you don't need anti-virus or anti-spyware. If you run XP as admin and then load up anti-virus and anti-spyware, you'll probably find your performance is worse than Vista without them. FYI, in early years (around 2000-2005 I believe) anti-virus was responsible for 10% of the XP Bluescreens -- they wrote kernel level drivers that would blow up all the time :-( All that said, some things in Vista (file copies) are dog slow. I'm really really waiting for SP1 to come out. But even pre-SP1 (and frankly, SP2 :-) ) I'm a big fan of Vista over XP, even though I'm a hardcore gamer. On x64 vs x32, I have a work machine running x64 and it has been a bit of a pain. If you buy retail, you can load it up, try it, and then back it out if you have driver problems. There are two reasons to go x64 -- if you have over 3 GB or RAM or if you want a little extra protection (there are one or two additional security fixes in x64 that didn't go into x32). (Disclaimer, I work at Microsoft and fixed a few -- just a few -- of the bugs in Vista)
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.01.16 20:42:00 - [32] 2003 server. You get the security and improved resource handling and it works as nice as XP unlike vista where limited user mode might be good but it's bugging you all the time so most end up switching the damn thing off. Not to mention that you are supporting all the DRM crap in it. Stay with XP or 2003 server (if you are at the university I'm sure you have access to it for free (we do)).
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.16 20:56:00 - [33] DOS 3.22 is > * _________________________________
Tallann Amarr Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.01.16 21:12:00 - [34] I use Vista 32 and have no issues with it.(On several machines and haven't had a driver issue since day one(8months ago) and frankly at this point I believe the "poor driver support" is just a smear campaign perpetuated by ifanboiz or people who have never touched a vista machine.(64bit not withstanding) The file copy issue is quite annoying but has an "unnoficial" fix, as I have it on my laptop and desktop and have no issues with either of these things. There is an official fix with sp1 which I have access to but haven't installed yet, although i don't think it is publicly available yet, and haven't really looked into the official patch release day. However I don't really see the point in getting a quad-core cpu though, you would get better gaming performance from a cheaper dual core and 2 sli/crossfire video cards. I have not myself compared the gaming performance between an xp and a vista machine, but it is my understanding that xp under typical gaming hardware performs about a 1-2% better from the benchmarks I have seen. With significantly higher grade hardware this may be greater, or it may be lesser, I have not seen the tests as related to it. I happen to prefer Vista because the search allows me to do many things quicker than I could under xp. For a strict gaming machine though I really don't think there is much difference performance wise(1-2%), just go with whatever you prefer. I would however suggest not installing the x64 of Xp or Vista. Vista however does ship with the 32/64 in one package.
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 21:17:00 - [35] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Ubuntu isn't any more difficult to the layman whose using Windows 98 for the first time. This is what we know and wish the rest of the world would find out. Originally by: DigitalCommunist If I'm experienced with various operating systems, and I can only navigate my way around Vista because of my experiences with other MS products, doesn't it stand to reason that Microsoft is no longer targeting the PC newbie? They aren't necessarily targeting only the PC newbie. They just need the their products to work for the PC newbie and be relatively unbreakable since the majority of PCs come with Windows. It'd be a tech support nightmare. They don't have to focus on the broadest form of PC use, they already have it, they just need it not to bite them in the ass later, hence the lack of control they give people over their OS. /makes fart noise
Everyone Dies Caldari Lucky Tampon	Posted - 2008.01.16 21:31:00 - [36] Originally by: Tallann I use Vista 32 and have no issues with it.(On several machines and haven't had a driver issue since day one(8months ago) and frankly at this point I believe the "poor driver support" is just a smear campaign perpetuated by ifanboiz or people who have never touched a vista machine.(64bit not withstanding) The file copy issue is quite annoying but has an "unnoficial" fix, as I have it on my laptop and desktop and have no issues with either of these things. There is an official fix with sp1 which I have access to but haven't installed yet, although i don't think it is publicly available yet, and haven't really looked into the official patch release day. However I don't really see the point in getting a quad-core cpu though, you would get better gaming performance from a cheaper dual core and 2 sli/crossfire video cards. I have not myself compared the gaming performance between an xp and a vista machine, but it is my understanding that xp under typical gaming hardware performs about a 1-2% better from the benchmarks I have seen. With significantly higher grade hardware this may be greater, or it may be lesser, I have not seen the tests as related to it. I happen to prefer Vista because the search allows me to do many things quicker than I could under xp. For a strict gaming machine though I really don't think there is much difference performance wise(1-2%), just go with whatever you prefer. I would however suggest not installing the x64 of Xp or Vista. Vista however does ship with the 32/64 in one package. ok vista fanboy.
Joe Starbreaker Starbreaker Spaceways	Posted - 2008.01.16 21:35:00 - [37] I built my computer and installed XP. If MS stops supporting XP, I just don't know. Linux I guess.
Radeberger Caldari I Care...... Seriously i do	Posted - 2008.01.16 22:23:00 - [38] The only reason why you should ever consider running 64bit windows for eve, should really be if you want to have more tha 3.25 GB of ram. Personally i'm running xp x64 with 8 GB of ram (running eve on ramdisk ftw ) without any problems. There's no reason to use the retail version of windows, since it's way more expensive that OEM, even if it does mean you get a few more privliges (a bit less strict limitations on hardware changes i believe). Technically it's the same operating system it's only the licence and support that's different, like you said. It's definitely not neccesary to get vista to run eve premium, however ccp has been working on a directx 10 version of eve, where vista would be neccesary, but that is all future. Is this a sig? i think not
kessah Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.01.16 22:24:00 - [39] Leopard
Kyra Felann Gallente Elite Storm Enterprises	Posted - 2008.01.16 22:36:00 - [40] No, you don't have to be running Vista for premium content, although I believe they are going to add DX10 support to Eve at some point and for that you will need Vista. Yes, Eve runs fine on Vista-64 (as does everything else I've tried). I'm not really sure about retail vs OEM versions. I'd recommend Vista. If you're building a new computer, I see no reason not to get Vista. I recently built a new gaming machine and I installed Vista and I'm happy with it. You will most likely want Vista for the DX10 anyway, so if you're building a new machine, you might as well get Vista (along with all Vista/DX10 compatible hardware) and be done with it.
Gharr Rhinn	Posted - 2008.01.16 22:48:00 - [41] I installed Vista Ultimate on a separate drive from XP Pro. Last night I slapped in a total of 8GB of Ram. Overall, I think Vista isn't as horrible as people make it out to me. There have been many many updates since its release so those whose first taste of vista was at release probably had a worse time. Everything I use has vista 64 drivers. Its more stable then I expected given peoples reviews, but still has some quirks. However for a gaming only I'd go with Vista. I've not had any problems with games.
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.16 23:49:00 - [42] Originally by: Fehz Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. spoken like a true "i'm terrified of change" zealot.. Spoken like a computer illiterate fanboi who doesn't address what I said. :P I was very interested in Vista when it was released and went out of my way to do research on what they had put into it. Had you done the same you might see things differently. Originally by: Fehz But if you want to run anything in DX10 like Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Bioshock.. You'll need Vista. Proof of computer illiteracy. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.01.17 00:21:00 - [43] I wouldn't bother with a quadcore processor. A good dualcore such as an E6750 is much cheaper and most of the time you're unlikely to notice a great deal of difference. Unless you can name several programs you commonly use that you know are optimised for quadcore processors, it's probably not worth getting one. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Taedrin Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.01.17 03:33:00 - [44] Go Linux! Seriously, if it weren't so lacking with games I'd be using it all the time.
Nimrel	Posted - 2008.01.17 03:53:00 - [45] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I wouldn't bother with a quadcore processor. A good dualcore such as an E6750 is much cheaper and most of the time you're unlikely to notice a great deal of difference. Unless you can name several programs you commonly use that you know are optimised for quadcore processors, it's probably not worth getting one. Running three instances of Eve at once?
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.01.17 09:15:00 - [46] Yea quadcore doesn't seem to help much. Eve is a very bad piece of programing. I get the whole computer acting all slow (4 cores) during the login screen for example. Not to mention that 2 clients throw up a **** load of graphic glitches. Not sure if it's 4 cores, 2600XT, 2003 server (works fine on 2003 server that I have on my laptop and it's an identical installation sans the drivers of course).
Psym0n Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.17 09:34:00 - [47] Edited by: Psym0n on 17/01/2008 09:34:30 Originally by: Radeberger There's no reason to use the retail version of windows, since it's way more expensive that OEM, even if it does mean you get a few more privliges (a bit less strict limitations on hardware changes i believe). Technically it's the same operating system it's only the licence and support that's different, like you said. OEM is for people that build and sell computers, as a manufacturer you provide support to your user if they have software and hardware problems. IF you buy OEM and your harddrive or motherboard failes, its likely you will need to reformat your PC, and upon trying to register an OEM key, it will not work as you ahve used it once allready. Look at it this way, my hard drive has failed once in about 6 years, and i have had to repurchase, in that time it went from XP to Vista, so i chucked my OEM XP and purchased Vista x64 (and a new pc) Retail is for home users, and you also purchase support from microsoft (not that its much good) and also get a 32bit and a 64bit version of the disks / 32bit version + a token for 64bit. Edit - And you can reinstall Retail disks without a problem, and have a licence to use it on a desktop and a "mobile" platform, not jsut the PC you buy it for in the OEM case.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.17 10:11:00 - [48] Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. I disagree. UAC has value. It is safer than running as Administrator all the time but not as inconvenient as running as a limited user. Those who say they get spammed with 'are you sure?' dialogs are either lying or have never actually used Vista for real. The dialogs appear as/when they are needed (exactly as several versions of Linux work in fact). In normal operation you don't get them very often. Of course if you add/remove hardware/software on a daily basis you might get a bit sick of the dialogs but mostly people hardly change their computers from month to month and so won't be bothered very often if at all. I suspect that a lot of the bad press for UAC is generated by reviewers who-by definition-are doing things that need administrative rights far more often than normal users. Even when you are asked, if you run as Administrator you only have to hit [Return] to continue. It's not like you have to keep typing your user name and password. If you know how to use a GUI properly (so few people do) then there's no need to move the mouse to click a button. Now as to whether the value of UAC is worth the cost of upgrading..that's another matter. I'll happily accept that there's nothing in Vista that's worth paying more than ú20 for but if you're getting a new machine and it has Vista on then IMO you're better off leaving it than downgrading to XP. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.17 10:18:00 - [49] Originally by: Kirao Compared to XP its slower Not much and the difference between Vista and XP is less than 12 months hardware development. By that I mean that if a new machine arrives with Vista it will be faster than the old XP one it replaces. Quote: Driver support isnt great Ack. I installed Vista only two weeks after Creative Labs released the drivers for my Xi-fi. It also couldn't handle the onboard USB sound and kept crashing. Quote: Cost Definite ack but as a free upgrade it's fine. Quote: Doesnt offer anything new Depends what you mean. If you mean compared to XP then you're wrong. If you mean that what it offers isn't Earth shakingly new or is available on other platforms then you're right. Quote: Application compatibility isnt that great I haven't noticed any issues but then I don't run a huge variety of applications. Quote: DRM (TPM) I don't like the concept but it doesn't really bother me. I didn't insist on converting my existing material to DRM and it lets me rip CDs without applying DRM. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Davos Breemer	Posted - 2008.01.17 10:38:00 - [50] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eventually you probably have to move over to Vista, There's no 'have to' about it at all. I know I certainly won't be. From here on out it will only be Linux on my machines and I know several people who are doing the same.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.01.17 10:59:00 - [51] Originally by: Nimrel Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I wouldn't bother with a quadcore processor. A good dualcore such as an E6750 is much cheaper and most of the time you're unlikely to notice a great deal of difference. Unless you can name several programs you commonly use that you know are optimised for quadcore processors, it's probably not worth getting one. Running three instances of Eve at once? Heh, I forgot that people tend to do this - but wouldn't the graphics card usually represent the main bottleneck in this sort of situation? Also, it's a bit of a pain to force each client to run on separate core each time it starts, although I suppose this ought to be possible - any idea how to do this? My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.17 11:58:00 - [52] I am getting vista 64 bit on my new computer, basically because XP support will disappear over time and I never had a legal XP version anyway, it would be a bit silly to buy one now. And I'm putting in 4 gb of ram 'cause I work with memory consuming programs alot and over 3.2 gb is not supported in 32 bit systems. I think Vista was pretty horrible when it came out though, but it has improved and will improve more over time. I'll probably still face some problems that I didn't have in XP but meh those things will be solved. And the new hardware I'll be using in it won't have driver problems anyway, just a pity there are no 64 bit drivers for my audiophile 2496 yet.
VeNT Minmatar Freelancer Union The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.01.17 12:02:00 - [53] I'd recommend XP, theres going to be a new service pack out for vista soon enough and may make it better but I doubt it will make it better for EVE than XP already is. I seem to remember reading somewhere about after the new SP theres going to be a 30 day trial for vista (or something like that) so you could test it and see. also don't forget to dual boot linux so you can see what that is like too (for a 3rd option) -------------------- Eris; The Greek goddess of Chaos, Discord, Confusion and Things You Know Not Of.
Gillian Delilah	Posted - 2008.01.17 12:41:00 - [54] I'm running Vista Home Premium (64bit) on a quad-core 6600 with an 8800GTX (so pretty similar to the OP's intended specs) and am having no real problems with EVE. I did get one BSOD (after repeatedly alt-tabbing in and out of the client while attempting to do various other things with the machine at the same time). Generally I think I'm having fewer problems with the EVE client running on Vista than I was running it on my old XP machine. I have run into various other stuff that won't work with Vista, but I've been pleasantly surprised by how many things do work without problems. I'd recommend it for any new machines, but wouldn't recommend upgrading to it on older hardware. (I haven't really done any serious proper work with Vista yet, so can't really offer any comparisons between it and other OSes.)
Neamus	Posted - 2008.01.17 14:11:00 - [55] Edited by: Neamus on 17/01/2008 14:13:22 Originally by: Kirao Originally by: Neamus I cant think of any good reason not to at least try Vista. Compared to XP its slower Driver support isnt great Cost Doesnt offer anything new Application compatibility isnt that great DRM (TPM) Le sigh... Yes Vista is slightly slower at the moment but its no where near the massive gulf that ppl make it out to be. This is a pre SP1 OS atm, XP was no different.. Poor driver support was the same again when XP first arrived, the only thing that saved it a bit was that some of the Win2k drivers worked. ItÆs something that will improve with time, and tbh wonÆt even be an issue with the new hardware the OP is getting. 64bit Vista home premium can be had for less than ú70. If you already have XP then yes there is that cost, but its not enough to start crying about. There was a time when XP cost about that much, even now OEM XP Home is still only around ú15 less. There are new features in Vista over XP, I'm beginning to wonder if you've even seen Vista running? Perhaps you've just fallen prey to the anti MS brigade rhetoric? But ok, if you really want to take that route then I would argue that beyond plug and play there have been no genuine innovations in windows since NT4 was released. Once again, app compatibility is always a potential issue with a new OS, it was the same with Win2K and XP but for a games machine its fine.. I havenÆt had an issue with any of my games or gaming related apps (TS, Vent etc) so far. DRM is only an issue if you like illegal software, in the context of Eve it shouldnÆt be an issue. Vista wont stop you listening to your downloaded mp3 collection, or your dodgy movies.. It wont call the police on you.. TPM use in Vista is largely limited to the Bitlocker drive encryption feature, not really an issue for a games machine, or any other type of machine. We'll have to see what happens with future windows releases though, its possible that MS will start abusing the tech. For a new games machine I cant think of a good reason not to at least try Vista.
WredStorm Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2008.01.17 14:29:00 - [56] I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback. The arguments for and against Vista are pretty much what I've seen elsewhere, but at least I know now that I can run XP and still get the premium graphics in Eve and if I do go Vista then 64bit is viable. As for what I'll do, I don't know yet for sure but I'm inclined to go a dual boot route right now with XP and Vista and then I can toss in Linux on the partition for whichever OS I decide to scrap out of those two. Thanks again, WredStorm
Reacz Caldari Empirius Enigmus Navy Insurgency	Posted - 2008.01.17 14:46:00 - [57] Windows Server 2003 Better than XP & Vista, plus its supported for the 4/5 years I believe.
Faye Valerii Caldari Exeunt Omnes	Posted - 2008.01.17 15:18:00 - [58] Vista is already semi-dead. Why ? Because businesses aren't upgrading to it. Right now, the general feeling in a lot of places is to stick with xp and server2k3, and wait for the next windows. Vista has far to many business-critical bugs, like the infamous eternal file copy bug. I'll admit Vista is more secure, but in a business environment this is not an advantage, as security is provided on the LAN/WAN level. And if you use a decent browser like Opera, stay away from illegal sites and don't mindlessly open every outlook attachment you see, you'll never get a virus anyway.
Psym0n Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.17 15:18:00 - [59] Edited by: Psym0n on 17/01/2008 15:25:02 Vista is not as bad as people make it out to be, providing you have hardware made in the pasy 2-3 years, there is minimal problems. If you buy from good manufactureres, drivers are provided on there sites, or if you are intelligent you buy from the same designer or manufacturer. Personally i have an EVGA nForce motherboard, an EVGA nVidia graphics card. The only drivers i ever need when i format my PC are nVidia and nVidia. I dont mind downloading 2 sets of drivers. Vista recognises nForce RAID, 32bit and 64bit. If you purchase webcams from Microsoft, Sound cards from Creative / nVidia you shouldnt have any problems. People are scared of change, and unfortunately there are a lot of hidden benefits to Vista that people dont see, apart form "omg, the start bar is different!". Originally by: Faye Valerii Vista is already semi-dead. Why ? Because businesses aren't upgrading to it. Right now, the general feeling in a lot of places is to stick with xp and server2k3, and wait for the next windows. Vista has far to many business-critical bugs, like the infamous eternal file copy bug. I'll admit Vista is more secure, but in a business environment this is not an advantage, as security is provided on the LAN/WAN level. And if you use a decent browser like Opera, stay away from illegal sites and don't mindlessly open every outlook attachment you see, you'll never get a virus anyway. I am migrating the business i work for over to Vista in July, i allready have a test enviroment with Vista clients, and even a RC1 Server 2008, which makes a fantastic Windows Deployment Server, has changed IAS into a fantastic Network Policy Server and even now allows "health validation" so if someone comes into my network with a laptop that has viruses, they cant join the network untill they clean up. I can understand the scare that large scale businesses with there in-house software applications will be having, but this only really affects pharmacutical and industrial sector companies, who most are still running 2000 anyway, as it "does the job" in there closed enviroment. New server technologies are a very good tool for network managers, and once people start using them they will see that eventually they will have to move to the more simpler tools. Everyone can say "blah blah mac linux" but as i run a windows network, its a good way forward.
Faye Valerii Caldari Exeunt Omnes	Posted - 2008.01.17 15:20:00 - [60] Originally by: Nimrel Edited by: Nimrel on 16/01/2008 20:13:01 I run Vista on all my home and work machines that aren't servers. I like XP too, but there are a lot of security changes in Vista -- some of them are visible (prompting for administrator access), some of them are not so visible (you're running as a limited user so it's extremely hard to get spyware), and some of them are completely invisible (there are around 15+ very important changes to how software is run that prevent most common security vulnerabilities that are exploited by hackers). If you do run Windows XP, be sure to run it as a limited user. This will get you about 75% of the protection from viruses and spyware that Vista has. Unfortunately, almost no-one does this. One reason is that most software (including Eve before Vista came out and forced the issue) would not run properly under a limited account (because almost no-one did, so almost no-one tested their software that way, chicken-and-egg problem). Vista has a whole bunch of 'workarounds' in it to allow software that breaks under a limited account in XP to think it's running under admin in Vista when it's not. This gets it a lot more application compatibility than XP running limited, though it's still not quite as good as XP running administrator. So if you really want your computer to run well over the long term because it has no viruses or spyware slowing it down and corrupting things, you choices are really XP as limited user or Vista. Between those two choices, Vista is a pretty clear winner. XP is still quite good, I ran it for 5 years using both limited and admin accounts with no anti-virus or spyware and never got a virus -- but I know what to avoid and my mom doesn't :-) Vista and XP limited are secure enough that you don't need anti-virus or anti-spyware. If you run XP as admin and then load up anti-virus and anti-spyware, you'll probably find your performance is worse than Vista without them. FYI, in early years (around 2000-2005 I believe) anti-virus was responsible for 10% of the XP Bluescreens -- they wrote kernel level drivers that would blow up all the time :-( All that said, some things in Vista (file copies) are dog slow. I'm really really waiting for SP1 to come out. But even pre-SP1 (and frankly, SP2 :-) ) I'm a big fan of Vista over XP, even though I'm a hardcore gamer. On x64 vs x32, I have a work machine running x64 and it has been a bit of a pain. If you buy retail, you can load it up, try it, and then back it out if you have driver problems. There are two reasons to go x64 -- if you have over 3 GB or RAM or if you want a little extra protection (there are one or two additional security fixes in x64 that didn't go into x32). (Disclaimer, I work at Microsoft and fixed a few -- just a few -- of the bugs in Vista) In the five or so years I've been using XP, I NEVER had a virus or spyware infection. And I don't use any protection whatsoever, except my router firewall. When I feel like it, I load a BOOTPE cd and run a virus/spyware scan, never found anything yet.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.