Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Windows x64

65 (56%)

Linux x64

26 (22.4%)

OSX

15 (12.9%)

Some old x86 gear

8 (6.9%)

Other

2 (1.7%)

Total Members Voted: 115

[Couchmonster]

Hey,

I want to know the distribution among the OS players use for DF.

[scriberman]

I've kept this page open as a tab since I first found it.  I'm really surprised the poll hasn't received more love.

[razor871]

I'd like to run DF on a GBA some day, just to see the size of the !!explosion!!.

[Arcvasti]

I'd like to run DF on a quantum computer one day. Maybe Qubits will finally give me max FPS.

[Xazo-Tak]

I'd like to run DF on a quantum computer one day. Maybe Qubits will finally give me max FPS.

Quantum Computing would improve worldgen and pathfinding, but that's about it.

[utunnels]

Are x64 computers main stream nowadays?

[moondowner]

In terms of hardware, there are virtually no modern processors that are incapable of x64.
In terms of OS architecture choice, I'd say, it's become mainstream, even though in many cases (with older hardware) the performance improvement of x64 over x86 is hardly noticeable, if even existent.

Also, Linux.

[GavJ]

even though in many cases (with older hardware) the performance improvement of x64 over x86 is hardly noticeable, if even existent.

Well of course. x64 is there in order to unlock the potential of better hardware. If you use shitty hardware with it, and don't see performance improvements, that is neither a failure of the design choice nor a surprise.

[mifki]

even though in many cases (with older hardware) the performance improvement of x64 over x86 is hardly noticeable, if even existent.

Well of course. x64 is there in order to unlock the potential of better hardware. If you use shitty hardware with it, and don't see performance improvements, that is neither a failure of the design choice nor a surprise.

It's more about software making use of it.

[My Urist Eternal]

This poll would be better if two of the answers weren't Windows.

[moondowner]

x64 is there in order to unlock the potential of better hardware. If you use shitty hardware with it, and don't see performance improvements, that is neither a failure of the design choice nor a surprise.

This is 40% true and 60% marketing. Yes, x64 is better in tests (especially those that are meant to show that it's better), but if you personally notice the improvement in how your system works, then grats, this is (most likely) placebo effect.
If your hardware is good, you won't notice the difference, everything will be fast anyway. If it's bad, everything will be slow anyway. By no means it makes a big difference right now. Just speaking from experience.

[GavJ]

if you personally notice the improvement in how your system works

? I use and benefit from greater than 4 gigabytes of memory at once every day of my life. This is not exactly some sort of arcane "marketing" issue. It's rather straightforward and objective. When you start running out of memory, everything gets like 8x slower and you either suffer slowness or have to limit how many things you can do at once, both of which are costs that you can avoid in x64 (I do a lot of simulations in the background of my computer for work, personally)

If I had a shitty computer with only 3 gigabytes installed or something, then it wouldn't matter. That's all I mean by unlocking the potential of better hardware.

[moondowner]

? I use and benefit from greater than 4 gigabytes of memory at once every day of my life. This is not exactly some sort of arcane "marketing" issue. It's rather straightforward and objective. When you start running out of memory, everything gets like 8x slower and you either suffer slowness or have to limit how many things you can do at once, both of which are costs that you can avoid in x64 (I do a lot of simulations in the background of my computer for work, personally)

Sorry, forgot that you're probably using Windows. You can use to 64GB ram on x86 with PAE, and it's really easy with Linux. However, Microsoft blocks this option on desktop versions of Windows, with some lame excuse about poor hardware support for PAE. It isn't blocked on Windows Server 2003/2008 though, you can use up to 64GB with x86 there. Makes no sense, as it is the server that needs to be safe and stable, rather than the desktop, right?

Also, if someone is willing to tell me that PAE is slow and horrible and something - just don't, because it's not (not to the point that you can honestly notice it). Companies just have to sell new hardware.

[moondowner]

For honesty's sake, here's one big downside when using PAE - each one process can not allocate more than 4GB. However, there are computers for different purposes, and not all of them are going to have to deal with some monstrous games, that eat away >4GB with one single process.

[GavJ]

PAE isn't really 32 bit addressing, though. It's 36 bit addressing or whatever in reality, with just simulated 32 locally. So yes, that has more utility, but it's not exactly a counterexample to the discussion, since the point being made is that higher bitsize addressing is useful.

In response to that, you've just said "Aha! but if you use this larger bit size addressing system, it works better!" Yes, I know... that's what I'm saying too... You're merely talking about a different number also larger than 32. Okay.