Remove 32 bit before install 64 bit?

[Kafka1]

I've been playing 32 bit but realised that I should probably be using the 64 bit version as I am using Win 7 64 bit and got 8Mb RAM.

Trouble is, 64 bit won't download fully, gets to about 30% then 'Failed to read from response stream'.

I wonder if I need to uninstall the 32 bit version first? If so how?

Thanks.

[TorTorden]

Think there might be something stuck with the launcher.

There should be an option in launcher for "alternate download" that might help.

[th3_fr4gil3]

Think there might be something stuck with the launcher.

There should be an option in launcher for "alternate download" that might help.

agreed try alternate download method first. i had that error this update.
you can just delete the 32 bit folder afterwards to save space.

[Kafka1]

OK thanks guys. I'll try that tomorrow.

Fly safe.

[Tifu]

I have the 64bit version of the game but have the same problem - the upgrade hits 80% then the dreaded 'Failed to read from response stream' comes up. Tried the alternate download option but hit the same roadblock

[Roger Wilco Jr]

Have you tried clearing your Internet Explorer cache? The launcher uses it even if you don't.

If that works, thank JohnLuke.

[thebs]

Have you tried clearing your Internet Explorer cache? The launcher uses it even if you don't.

Another reason not to use MS IE for browsing at all, keeping it "prestine" for the few things reliant on it, like apps. I know people don't trust US DISA or NSA, but their Information Assurance recommendations to never, ever use MS IE for anything if possible are made for a reason.

If that works, thank JohnLuke.

Why use a disk cache at all?

Browser disk caches are a serious storage lifespan reduction engine ... especially in the age of NAND ... and MS IE -- along with Windows Update (which also leverages the MS IE components) -- are the primary reason for NAND lifespans being cut short. I.e., MS IE and Windows Update eat up 200x as much lifespan as actually written, which is why they don't last as long as the enthusiast site "block tests" that say they should last decades.

► Show Spoiler

Personal experience, with over 10,000 NAND (and NOR, along with some capacitor-backed SRAM and battery-backed NVRAM) devices over the last decade.

I.e., I've done a crapload of embedded, plus a lot of commodity consumer stuff, including Windows CE and Embedded NT-based, know how the overlay works (including it being forward-ported to NT 6.1 aka Windows 7+, etc...).

Chrome and Firefox make disabling disk cache pretty easy, and MS IE 10 used to as well. I recommend always doing this. The only benefit Chrome and Firefox have over MS IE is that you don't fire up -- in the background -- Chrome or Firefox components every time you launch most Windows apps, like you do MS IE.

Otherwise, one can always try a RAMDisk. There are both free and non-free versions out there for Windows. A 2GiB RAMdisk for browsers and other programs can make one heck of a difference in performance and, in the case of NAND devices, lifespan.

Off Topic

Other OSes make support/setup inherent'n quick to their Virtual Memory -- typically anything UNIX can mount /tmpfs anywhere, for anything or anybody, given permission.

And don't get me started on how badly FAT file systems are designed for NAND, NOR or even any type of SSD, including SRAM and NVRAM. It wears out cells pretty badly compared to inode-based file systems, let alone most other OSes use strict separation of static binaries, data and temporary file systems, whereas Windows clumps it all-together (fragmentation and access hell), putting the age-old argument of the '80s to bed.

I.e., Drive Letters exist because CP/M, which MS-DOS 1.0 is a direct, code descendant of (licensed by a 3rd party for $25K, IBM later settle on Microsoft's behalf in a lawsuit for $800K with CP/M's founder), lacked directories. MS-DOS 2.0 did integrate directories (and redirection/piping) from BSD UNIX code, but Drive Letters and the layout was set by then. Microsoft continued the non-sense with Windows, and then even moved around various directories without any consistency, even conflict, including spaces much to the annoyance of the early Digital VMS and NT Windows architects at Microsoft itself.

Now it's just destructive for NAND devices, which consumers deal with over and over as they write dozens or even hundreds more times than they ever need to.

Hence ... why I always tell people to turn off disk caches for MS IE, especially since most applications use MS IE underneath, as it's tied to every application built with Visual Studio since 1997. It's a disk thrasher ... and, now, NAND killer.

[Loriath]

Why use a disk cache at all?]

Because the world is not filled with unlimited access. Metered internet is a thing in a lot of the world. Your thinking like an engineer an not like a user. Mobile data plans are not unlimited, Home internet is not unlimited, and caching is the most effective way to deal with it. Not only that, but there people that have a low tolerance for waiting.

Look at the face of the third person in a checkout line at the grocery store. They are NOT happy to have to wait. And in testing, even waiting an extra second to get the content seen makes people FEEL they have a slow device. Same reason Browsers prioritize the displaying of page data as soon as possible. If it waited to display after ALL the page was rendered people would say its a SLOW browser. This is from Real World Testing for Customer Satisfaction, not Engineering Satisfaction.

If you are worried about the write life of your SSD, your in the 1%. The other 99% of us want it faster.

[thebs]

Big OT ...

► Show Spoiler

Off Topic

Why use a disk cache at all?]

Because the world is not filled with unlimited access. Metered internet is a thing in a lot of the world. Your thinking like an engineer an not like a user.

Er, um ... what? Engineers don't care about user experiences? What? I guess all that acceptance testing and account management with major customers I've had to do is just out-the-window.

Sigh ... I should know better than to post comments like this to a gaming forum.

Mobile data plans are not unlimited, Home internet is not unlimited, and caching is the most effective way to deal with it. Not only that, but there people that have a low tolerance for waiting.

Er, um ... disk caching, not all caching -- as in memory caching is still there! In fact, most disk caches don't work very well, and end up getting re-verified and, often, re-downloaded ... actually resulting loss anyway.

Furthermore, if it is to save on metered ... why aren't people using proxy servers? They have multiple devices -- phones, tablets, PCs, etc... Heck, more Routers are coming with USB storage options, and several have this option nowdays. Click the option in the setup, and it's transparent.

Look at the face of the third person in a checkout line at the grocery store. They are NOT happy to have to wait ...

Ooookayyyyyy ...

You do know memory caching-only, whether disabled disk cache, or RAMdisk, is mega-faster, right? Typical DRAM is around 40ns from first return. Platter? Oh yeah, about 100x slower.

Having a memory-only cache is only an issue if MS IE continually crashes, and then you've got bigger problems. MS IE disk cache ("temporary files for off-line usage") is probably the most inconsistent load of crap, especially when apps don't "clean up" well. Of course, if you use a RAMdisk, it's still there ... until you reboot, even though MS IE crashes. That's a bonus going for a RAMdisk, and part of the reason I use tmpfs in POSIX systems too.

Obviously, we're not going anywhere. Because my experience running sites, with the browser aspect in full reality ... oh forget it. This is a gaming forum, not going to follow much of it any way.

If you are worried about the write life of your SSD, your in the 1%. The other 99% of us want it faster.

Er, um, er ... what part do you not understand that not using disk cache is faster. I.e., if you're committing dozens and hundreds of writes because the browser is screwed up, you are running slower.

The "savings" on a browser crash or pulling up a prior session with disk is usually not often a benefit, let alone has to be validated for consistency and concurrency. MS IE is one of the worst at this too ... hence why it has to be cleared ... a lot.

And that's why NAND drives fail at higher rates than platters, especially 2.5" platters. MS IE is a big culprit of both performance issues and wearing out NAND cells. Turning off the disk cache (or using a RAMdisk for it), and running with pure memory cache (or the RAMdisk), makes it much faster.

Chrome and Firefox, both far more easy to disable disk cache in, also benefit too.

You still sore about the UK Imperial != US Customary thing? I know that gets to a lot of people the first time they realize they've been arguing for 30+ years that the US is backwards, especially if they're British, as well as a lot of the Commonwealth that stuck with Imperial for so long (given the whole basis of wanting to spurn the French for 100 years, while the US differed and rebased to 'that French system' that now everyone uses -- there's some real irony to all that too, given a speaker's assertion while nationality lines up ... humorously with that history). Because ...

I could swear I was offering universally sound advice that anyone in IT who has tried it would agree with, but apparently, this is becoming the norm between you and I? Guess I just need to avoid you then?

Then again ... was I even responding to you? /me checks ... no. Guess I'm just a target now?

If you would like an apology for the Imperial-Customary thing, you now have it. I was a bit shrewd in my response, but understand as an American engineer, I get a lot of attitude from time-to-time. I over-reacted, tried to post most under Spoiler/Off-topic, but it was a bit over the top. So I am sorry if it offended you, and I could have started it much better than I did. Peace?

[Loriath]

Big OT ...

Took it wrong, you did.

► Show Spoiler

Not taking shots, just pointing out differences in thinking. Cacheing as I referred to was regarding the IE Cache. Yes, no cache is faster, but reality is that the software uses it. No choice. Proxy on router: Again, 99% of the people never open their router interface. Fact, most of the routers have the same password that they shipped with.

TL,DR I was referring to your comment about why use a cache at all with regards to the fact the Launcher uses IE and has cache issues from time to time. I gave solid reasons why the cache is important. Speed. Plain and simple, people want speed.

It was not an attack on you. If you believe it was, then sorry, but it was just a response. If you prefer, I will avoid you from now on.