Print

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

A 64-bit comp

233 (96.3%)

A 32-bit comp

9 (3.7%)

Total Members Voted: 241

[jecowa]

OSX versions starting from 10.8 Mountain Lion have 64-bit kernel. Older versions can run 64bit stuff, with limitations. (This is possible because OSX itself is running on top of a microkernel, which handles the relevant parts.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

Yeah, I'm on Snow Leopard (10.6) and I can run 64-bit apps just fine. With Lion (10.7) I think they dropped any remaining 32-bit support, so everyone running 10.7 or later is definitely on a 64-bit machine. Only the first few Intel Macs were 32-bit; everything from Core 2 duo onwards was 64-bit. Even the old G5 Macs were 64-bit.

[Dirst]

My 2008 iMac has a 64-bit processor. The few people with 32-bit processors could probably barely run Dwarf Fortress anyway. Anyone whose most powerful computer is still 32-bit probably deserves a new machine.

So, you are suggesting the choices be relabeled to "64-bit comp" and "I misread the question"?

[Shonai_Dweller]

My 2008 iMac has a 64-bit processor. The few people with 32-bit processors could probably barely run Dwarf Fortress anyway. Anyone whose most powerful computer is still 32-bit probably deserves a new machine.

So, you are suggesting the choices be relabeled to "64-bit comp" and "I misread the question"?

Yes, that sounds about right!

In all seriousness could those running DF on a computer with an actual 32 bit processor let us know what kind of performance they're getting?

By which, of course, I mean an actual 32 bit processor. Not, "extremely old 64 bit processor that I can't upgrade the 32 bit OS of because of lack of money for Microsoft or courage to switch to Linux".

That would be good to know if the point is to determine whether Toady should put resources into maintaining a 32 bit version, while still adding the remaining, potentially power sapping, 57% of the remaining game features.

[Max™]

Yeah, I don't mean to disparage anyone but it would be nice if the three 32 bit votes could confirm that they're using a Pentium 4 era chipset (like 2006 at the latest) rather than assuming that their 32 bit OS means it's a 32 bit chip.

[TheBiggerFish]

I figure I'll just PTW this.

[lethosor]

That would be good to know if the point is to determine whether Toady should put resources into maintaining a 32 bit version, while still adding the remaining, potentially power sapping, 57% of the remaining game features.

Not quite sure what you mean, but there's typically not a significant speed difference between 32- and 64-bit code running on the same CPU. (Of course, upgrading from an ancient 32-bit CPU to a modern 64-bit one is another story.)

From past discussions, save compatibility seems to be one of the main concerns when it comes to a 64-bit build of DF (well, that and getting a 64-bit version to actually compile under a newer compiler). Compared to the effort Toady would be putting in to keeping the builds compatible, I don't think actually maintaining a 32-bit version would be as much effort (although it could increase the time it takes to build/upload releases, I guess).

[Shonai_Dweller]

That would be good to know if the point is to determine whether Toady should put resources into maintaining a 32 bit version, while still adding the remaining, potentially power sapping, 57% of the remaining game features.

Not quite sure what you mean, but there's typically not a significant speed difference between 32- and 64-bit code running on the same CPU. (Of course, upgrading from an ancient 32-bit CPU to a modern 64-bit one is another story.)

From past discussions, save compatibility seems to be one of the main concerns when it comes to a 64-bit build of DF (well, that and getting a 64-bit version to actually compile under a newer compiler). Compared to the effort Toady would be putting in to keeping the builds compatible, I don't think actually maintaining a 32-bit version would be as much effort (although it could increase the time it takes to build/upload releases, I guess).

My point was, any computer which has a 32 bit cpu (ie, probably 10 years old or more) probably barely runs DF now and almost certainly won't run DF 15 years from now when we begin to approach 1.0 which will probably have higher cpu requirements than now.
But that's just a guess, which is why I asked for the opinion of someone actually playing on an old machine.

Maintaining two versions of the game means checking bugs in both versions, checking possible memory crashes from people using 32 bit versions. Seems like needless extra work for a one-man team.

[lethosor]

Fair point - I just assumed you meant 64-bit code was faster, I guess.

In theory, if Toady handles the transition well, the bugs should be the same in 32-bit and 64-bit versions - except out-of-memory issues, which are hard to diagnose, although hopefully they'd become less common if a lot of people start using the 64-bit version.

Regarding the number of builds to handle, there are 4 right now (2 different Windows builds, plus OS X and Linux). The rendering/input in the legacy version behaves a bit differently, but out of all of these versions, I can only remember around 3 bugs that were only present in some of them (actually, the bugs were technically present in all of them, but different behavior on some platforms led to different or no symptoms). Yeah, a 64-bit transition will likely involve some 64-bit-related bugs, but once those are resolved, there's not much that would result in 32- or 64-bit-only issues.

[Max™]

Yeah, really 64 bit offers less of a speed boost than a room boost, we could do more as fast or maybe slower, but by more I mean "run 500x500, 1000x1000, or larger world-gens like we do now" or "run smaller world-gens for longer without crashing" or "handle loading sites which cross multiple world tiles" even.

[f4nt4sy]

intel i5-3570k, 16gb ram, nvidia 660ti, 64bit ofc. need this for rendering. studying architecture. little overpowered for df but meh. also a doom fan, sooo,..........

[DeKaFu]

Just to chime in, regardless of CPU, there's certain to be a number of DF players still using 32 bit OSes (I can't be the only one...) so I'd hope ending support for the 32 bit version isn't actually something that's on the table any time soon.

[f4nt4sy]

Just to chime in, regardless of CPU, there's certain to be a number of DF players still using 32 bit OSes (I can't be the only one...) so I'd hope ending support for the 32 bit version isn't actually something that's on the table any time soon.

over here you get 64bit machines for under 100€. just saying. you get more benefits of a new engine than just keep playing df. just saying. or is your budget that tight atm?

[Putnam]

Keeping support for 32-bit is a bit ridiculous. It's about the same as keeping support for Windows 95 despite Windows XP having been around for 4 years.

[Curious Key]

64 bit here, as I'm sure most people probably are at this stage.

But it's definitely good to do this poll, as it gives Toady more encouragement to move ahead with moving onto 64-bit. Hurrah, old chap!

[mifki]

On the one hand, lot of people use 32bit system (not to confuse with 32bit processors), and, I believe all WinXP users are on 32bit. So dropping support for 32bit would definitely affect lot of people. On the other hand, I don't even want to think about amount of work to support both 32/64bit versions in DFHack, so I'd like it to be 64bit-only.