Someone please explain this RAM limitation to me.

[Daid]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

For some weird reason windows 10 has an 32 bit version. no idea why

According to my data 6 months ago, 15-20% of the Windows users (of my software) are still running 32bit versions of their OS. I did not check if their CPUs are capable of running an 64bit OS.

[magnemoe]

3 minutes ago, Daid said:

According to my data 6 months ago, 15-20% of the Windows users (of my software) are still running 32bit versions of their OS. I did not check if their CPUs are capable of running an 64bit OS.

Yes and majority of them is still running windows xp with some on Vista. 
Only 8 year old pces and some weak older atom systems is 32 bit. 

[klgraham1013]

You have to stop supporting old hardware at some point.

[radonek]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Someone in another tread described the benefit of using 32 bit programs in linux. 
Still for windows its plenty of 32 bit versions around so it make sense to make small programs with small demands 32 bit.

I never said a word against 32 bit code.  Indeed, there are good reasons to run 32 bit code. But most of them are lost on 64 bit OS. If 32bit works better for you, go with 32bit system. To give you an example, my Skype binary have 26412 KB in memory. This should be slightly less then what 64bit version would weigh. However, it links in 32 version of Qt libraries  which add up to about 25 MB of unshared memory. Even if they are smaller too, it'd be less wasteful to have native binary, linking native libraries which could be shared. Either that, or turn every Qt app to 32bit too, which pushes back to having plain 32bit OS. There are some other advantages to 32bit code, but they are mostly visible in special apps that do not use much memory, link few libraries and do little syscalls  - scientific number crunching etc. On linux, you can also use x32 ABI which lets 32bit apps use some real advantages of amd64 architecture (PIC code, more registers, passing in registers etc) but note it is different ABI from x86 - you have to port apps just like to amd64.

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

For some weird reason windows 10 has an 32 bit version. no idea why

They want to support smaller devices. Of course, they could as well just continue developing XP, but who would buy 10 then :-)

[Red Iron Crown]

10 minutes ago, radonek said:

They want to support smaller devices. Of course, they could as well just continue developing XP, but who would buy 10 then :-)

You do realize that development of XP was continued, and Win 10 was the eventual result?

[Speadge]

7 minutes ago, radonek said:

They want to support smaller devices. Of course, they could as well just continue developing XP, but who would buy 10 then :-)

dont think thats about the device size but their age.

almost every new device has 64bit already - even your phones.
its just for those devices that are still in use since years - and the IoT-version, IIRC

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

You do realize that development of XP was continued, and Win 10 was the eventual result?

Technicaly windows goes back to windows 1.0

however Vista got an new core so Vista,7, 8 and 10 is another generation. NT, 2000 and XP was the previous core. 

[Mister Spock]

So is there any place to see a rough estimate of which mods use how much memory?  Mods with lots of parts are the worst, yes?  Or environmental mods?

Also, suppose I wanted to install Linux.  How much hard disk space would I need?  Windows takes up much of my relatively small SSD, but I have lots of space on my slower hard disks.

[Stone Blue]

30 minutes ago, Mister Spock said:

So is there any place to see a rough estimate of which mods use how much memory?  Mods with lots of parts are the worst, yes?  Or environmental mods?

Also, suppose I wanted to install Linux.  How much hard disk space would I need?  Windows takes up much of my relatively small SSD, but I have lots of space on my slower hard disks.

If you want Linux ONLY to play KSP, you can actually run Linux (and mayb KSP), from a flashdrive, WITHOUT putting anything on your SSD/HDDs...

[Mister Spock]

Really?  That's an interesting possibility.  But if I chose to use a HDD, would I best-advised to find some space on my SSD, or would Linux work ok off a slower HDD?

And yeah, I want Linux only to play KSP, though I imagine I might fall in love with it and want it for other stuff thereafter.  

[Stone Blue]

If running Linux off a flashdrive doesnt work for you, and you end up dual-booting by installing it on the computer, AND since you only want it to play KSP, I would defiantely just make a partition for it on your HDD... I'm still skeptical that running KSP from an SSD vs HDD doesnt really offer any in-game performance gains...Beyond shaving some time of the game load times...
And Linux (at least Lubuntu), is SOOOO much less resource intensive than Windows, that just running Linux at on the slowest hardware still will blow your socks off, coming from Windows...

If running Linux off a flashdrive doesnt work for you, and you end up dual-booting by installing it on the computer, AND since you only want it to play KSP, I would defiantely just make a partition for it on your HDD... I'm still skeptical that running KSP from an SSD vs HDD doesnt really offer any in-game performance gains...Beyond shaving some time of the game load times...
And Linux (at least Lubuntu), is SOOOO much less resource intensive than Windows, that just running Linux at all on the slowest hardware still will blow your socks off, coming from Windows...

Edited December 16, 2015 by Stone Blue

[Mister Spock]

 

43 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

If running Linux off a flashdrive doesnt work for you, and you end up dual-booting by installing it on the computer, AND since you only want it to play KSP, I would defiantely just make a partition for it on your HDD... I'm still skeptical that running KSP from an SSD vs HDD doesnt really offer any in-game performance gains...Beyond shaving some time of the game load times...
And Linux (at least Lubuntu), is SOOOO much less resource intensive than Windows, that just running Linux at all on the slowest hardware still will blow your socks off, coming from Windows...

Actually, I love the idea of running it off a flash drive.  You mean, say, an 8GB capacity thumb drive, connected to the PC via USB, yes?  Will it run fast enough if it's using USB?  I have an i7 930 quad-core @2.8GHz, 12G RAM, an SSD with only 4GB free, lots of USB ports (but not sure they're all USB 3.0).

Also, I gather you think Lubuntu is the flavor of Linux I'd want?

Edited December 16, 2015 by Mister Spock

[Dafni]

13 minutes ago, Mister Spock said:

 

Actually, I love the idea of running it off a flash drive.  You mean, say, an 8GB capacity thumb drive, connected to the PC via USB, yes?  Will it run fast enough if it's using USB?  I have an i7 930 quad-core @2.8GHz, 12G RAM, an SSD with only 4GB free, lots of USB ports (but not sure they're all USB 3.0).

Also, I gather you think Lubuntu is the flavor of Linux I'd want?

I was tinking along the same lines. A external HD with a USB3 should do the trick, right?

[Stone Blue]

44 minutes ago, Mister Spock said:

Actually, I love the idea of running it off a flash drive.  You mean, say, an 8GB capacity thumb drive, connected to the PC via USB, yes?  

Yes

 

Quote

Will it run fast enough if it's using USB?  I have an i7 930 quad-core @2.8GHz, 12G RAM, an SSD with only 4GB free, lots of USB ports (but not sure they're all USB 3.0).

I'm no expert, so I couldnt even guess how fast it runs compared to a HDD (or SSD) install... I CAN say, it ran beautifully for me off a flashdrive, even using a USB 2.0 port...I have an older laptop with i5 2450M and only 6GB RAM... (I couldnt even imagine how happy I would be running KSP with 12GB RAM at its disposal... )

 

Quote

Also, I gather you think Lubuntu is the flavor of Linux I'd want?

I only say Lubuntu, because thats pretty much the extent of my limited experience with Linux... I gather from other responses I've seen on the forums, that Mint is also popular with people wanting Linux for KSP... (I had tried Kubuntu first, but the install didnt go very well for me, so I fell back to my second choice, and havent looked back since... Mint was my 3rd choice when I was window shopping thru distros...)

If you dont need the bells and whistles of a pretty desktop interface, then try to find a Linux distro that uses little system resources, so KSP can use the RAM instead... My Lubuntu install only uses 250MB of RAM at idle...Vs 1.2GB on a typical Win8.1 install... The "slimmest" RAM usage I could get on a WIn OS for KSP, was @ 750MB on Win7...

I'll also add, running KSP on Linux is no "miracle, perfect, higher performing" way to play KSP vs on WIn/Mac...
For me, the obvious increase in stabillity (MUCH less crashing), and the removal of the RAM ceiling, so I can add many more mods than on Windows, is enough to make me happier than a pig in poop...

Just be aware, that, at least for me, in game frame rates, ship part counts, and graphics are all pretty comparable to what I get in Windows...MAYBE slightly better, but not much... Also, in WIndows, I was crashing at 3.75-4.25 total RAM usage... If I add enough mods, or even install Scatterer or the like, I'll STILL crash on Linux... But on Linux it's usually around the 5-5.2GB RAM usage (I only have 5.8GB usable installed)...

Edited December 16, 2015 by Stone Blue

[Hannu2]

1 hour ago, Mister Spock said:

Really?  That's an interesting possibility.  But if I chose to use a HDD, would I best-advised to find some space on my SSD, or would Linux work ok off a slower HDD?

And yeah, I want Linux only to play KSP, though I imagine I might fall in love with it and want it for other stuff thereafter.  

I made 200 GB partition on my HDD and installed Linux Mint for KSP 0.90. It worked well. It may take little more time to boot or load KSP but it have no effect to playing. It was nice to have graphical mods but when 1.0 came i went back to Windows because I often use some other softwares at the same time.

[Mister Spock]

 

12 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

I CAN say, it ran beautifully for me off a flashdrive, even using a USB 2.0 port... If you dont need the bells and whistles of a pretty desktop interface, then try to find a Linux distro that uses little system resources, so KSP can use the RAM instead...

Cool.  I guess I'd need to adjust my BIOS to boot off the flashdrive first.  I have lots of USB devices attached to my PC; I don't know if that process would slow down my normal boot-up.  I suppose I could unplug the flashdrive when I didn't want to boot to Linux.  Or install Linux on my external HDD, which I usually leave turned off, and turn it on when I want Linux.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Mister Spock

[WuphonsReach]

I've run both Linux Mint and Ubuntu Gnome lately, and settled on Ubuntu Gnome (because I needed RabbitVCS integration) over Linux Mint.  Mint was very good, very Win2000/WinXP style.  Gnome, OTOH, is more like OS X, and I prefer it (with a few judicious add-ons).  Gnome is definitely different, but that's a good thing.

Win7 now only exists as a VM on my personal laptop (which also runs Ubuntu Gnome 14.04), the gaming desktop is 100% Ubuntu Gnome 14.04.  Probably 1/3 of my Steam library was already SteamOS compatible, and I will only buy SteamOS compatible games now.  I will at some point figure out how to pass a GPU through to a Win VM on my gaming system (or setup a dual-boot), but I haven't bothered yet and probably won't until next year.

It helps that for the past few years, 90% of the software I purchase / use is cross-platform (or open-source).  I'd been kicking around the idea of switching to Linux full-time, and KSP needing 64bit to be stable with mods pushed me over the edge.  The only thing I need Windows for is MS Office (for the few times that LibreOffice won't do it) or my Windows-only Steam games that won't run under WINE.

[r_rolo1]

Well, with all of the above said, the current state of the game about RAM usage is that , due to some legacy decisions that probably don't make much of sense now, the game has both a subpar handing of part loading ( loading all the parts at game start does not make much of a dent when you have only a handful of them ...  ) and it has a absurd number of scene changes due to bad UI design ( something, that given the issues with scene change the game has, is almost criminal ). You also have to add the fact that the game does not make use of the GPU as much as that, a thing that overloads the sole thread the game uses even more ( I'm pretty sure that my 2003 retired desktop would run KSP better than my current laptop because of that ...if the AGP GPU I have there could run shader 3 :/ and if the motherboard could use more than 2 GB  )....

 

Hopefully the port to Unity 5 will solve or atleast alleviate most of those issues, though ...

[KatzOhki]

There are flavors of Linux that can boot from a 3.5" floppy, but I tend to go with the ones that are geared towards a little more GUI. Puppy Linux is one that I like, but for KSP I would probably do Mint as well. You almost certainly have room for it on your HDD, I would guess.