Was there an update that swapped 64-bit back to non-default?

[SunburstMoon]

3 hours ago, monstah said:

You might wanna check your in-game settings, I bet those two files reverted them to default

Nope, all is fine. I don't know what those 2 files were, and I did it again and 1 file got reacquired ... I should probably do a fresh install at some point.

[sardia]

Does anyone know how to change steam so it always uses the 64-bit version? Saves me a click.

[stibbons]

6 hours ago, jwenting said:

that's because there is no 32 bit Mac version

Nitpick: The OS X build is a universal binary, that contains code for both architectures. You don't need to specify which one to run because the operating system figures it out. 

[Alshain]

It would be nice if there was just a launch configuration would could use to force the 64-bit version.  You know, like -popuwindow but instead -x64.  Having the popup there at all is annoying.

[N_Danger]

1 hour ago, sardia said:

Does anyone know how to change steam so it always uses the 64-bit version? Saves me a click.

Go to the KSP folder in steam. Look for the 64 bit exe in that folder and make a short cut of that. Then put it on your desk top. Launch steam separately if you need steam up at the same time or if you want to check for updates.

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

It's giving my x32 as default on Steam. I don't see a difference, getting frequent crashes no matter what I do.

[sardia]

14 minutes ago, N_Danger said:

Go to the KSP folder in steam. Look for the 64 bit exe in that folder and make a short cut of that. Then put it on your desk top. Launch steam separately if you need steam up at the same time or if you want to check for updates.

Unfortunately, you aren't referring to the launch options that come with most programs. There may not be any way to set the launch options on steam to select the 64bit version by default. That's a shame. At that point, I might as well just add a KSP as a separate install or something equally ugly.

[tg626]

I noticed the change today. Thought I was going nuts at first.  Silly really, but I guess the logic is 32 bit will run on 64 bit, but 64 bit will not run on 32 bit, so default to 32 for those who don't read and just click OK to first all bug reports?

[Alshain]

4 hours ago, tg626 said:

I noticed the change today. Thought I was going nuts at first.  Silly really, but I guess the logic is 32 bit will run on 64 bit, but 64 bit will not run on 32 bit, so default to 32 for those who don't read and just click OK to first all bug reports?

I blame Microsoft.  Nearly every PC built this century has a 64 bit CPU, they haven't produced 32-bit CPU's since then.  Yet, Microsoft still offers Windows in 32 and 64 bit.  If they would just stop offering 32-bit, everyone would be the same by now.  Should have happened way back on Windows 7.

Does Apple offer 32-bit anymore?  I know technically Linux can be compiled in 32-bit but I doubt many home users capable of compiling Linux actually do that.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Alshain

[klgraham1013]

11 hours ago, tg626 said:

I noticed the change today. Thought I was going nuts at first.  Silly really, but I guess the logic is 32 bit will run on 64 bit, but 64 bit will not run on 32 bit, so default to 32 for those who don't read and just click OK to first all bug reports?

Your logic fails when 32 bit systems really don't exists anymore.

[LameLefty]

8 hours ago, Alshain said:

Does Apple offer 32-bit anymore?  

No. As I posted earlier, the last OS X version available for 32-bit systems was 10.6 (we're on 10.11 with 10.12 due this summer in beta form). So going on 6 years. The last 32-bit processors Apple built into a Mac were in early Core Duo and Core Single systems made in 2006/2007, so going on 9 years now.

[tg626]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Your logic fails when 32 bit systems really don't exists anymore.

Wrong.

Are they a small share?  Absolutely.  Are most of those 32 bit OSes running on 64 bit cpus?  Probably.  But they are out there, ksp has spent the lion's share of it's life in 32bit.  Establishing a reasonable expectation that it will run 32 bit.

I could see swapping default and/or dropping 32 bit with a 2.0 version or a KSP II v1.0 but until 32 bit is officially abandoned, the choice makes sense.

Still, it's only a guess on my part - and given they already had it set for 64 bit by default, it annoys Mr that they changed it.

[Renegrade]

9 hours ago, Alshain said:

I blame Microsoft.  Nearly every PC built this century has a 64 bit CPU, they haven't produced 32-bit CPU's since then.  Yet, Microsoft still offers Windows in 32 and 64 bit.  If they would just stop offering 32-bit, everyone would be the same by now.  Should have happened way back on Windows 7.

Atom processors were released fairly recently and only a limited selection models have 64-bit support.  So there'd be entire generations of netbooks and compact-form PCs restricted to Windows XP or Vista following that plan.  So they pretty much have to have a 32-bit branch.

(NB: Atoms are part of the x86 family, rather than an ARM chip or something.  They pretend to be ARM though, low power, even lower performance...)

Also re: Steam, it probably defaults to 32-bit as that's guaranteed to work on any system.  It's the "safe mode" option.  32-bit will work on a 64-bit system (works extremely well in fact).  64-bit will not work on any 32-bit system. 

9 hours ago, Alshain said:

Does Apple offer 32-bit anymore?  I know technically Linux can be compiled in 32-bit but I doubt many home users capable of compiling Linux actually do that.

64-bit incurs heavy penalties both in code size, page tables and kernel constructs, so any machine with 4 gigs of RAM or less should really be running a 32-bit kernel, unless you really need to hit that swap hard with a broad address range for some masochistic reason (strongly UN-advised, active swap is a good way of killing any type of fixed storage, and also killing any sort of performance).

This goes double for servers, as an older Core 2-era CPU makes for a very powerful server (web/samba/mumble/etc), and THOSE chips actually run 32-bit code much faster than 64-bit code (the additional hardware required to decode 64-bit instructions is reconfigured for additional 32-bit decoding/branch prediction or somesuch), and are often hard-limited by chipsets to a max of 8 gigabytes anyways, and are usually equipped with 4 or less.  I'm actually very sad that I don't have any working Core 2 machines now, which means I have to run my own main server off of a power-hungry i7-920.  That's going to really add to my fun when the temperatures warm up next month and that damn potato-cooker is making it 32C in here (AC is central to the whole building complex and doesn't come on until LATE May, and even then, the potato-cooker will be fighting the AC tooth and nail).

So no, it's not "technically" - there are MANY 32-bit Linux installations, partly because it's much less bloated than win-suck.  Heck, my remote server was rocking a whole gig of memory on a P4 chip for the longest time, and would still be doing so if the hard drive hadn't been flagged with a SMART warning and there hadn't been a limited-time sale on 8-gig Lynnfield units.  I'd love to see a bloated 64-bit OS try to stuff it's fat ass onto that P4 machine.

64-bit is actually kinda niche in it's usage, most things can be done fine in a 32-bit environment.  There's only a handful of things that bloat out so wildly as to need that - stuff like games (well, some games.  There's seven entire generations of 32-bit and 16-bit console games, and most of the 32-bit ones would run on a 29-bit CPU if such a thing existed~), video/photo editing, big data stuff, some types of scientific research, etc.  The vast majority of everyday things can happen in 32-bit just fine - spreadsheets, text/word processing, casual surfing (FF official windohs build was 32-bit ONLY until VERY recently), little gizmos (calculators/post-it thingies/calendars/email programs/chat programs etc), terminals, Steam, etcetc.

I always get a good laugh when I see "notepad.exe" in taskmanager with no 32-bit tag on it.  Like as if that can handle a 60 meg file, let alone a >4 gig one.