[News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 64-bit Linux, is it time? ,----[ Quote ] | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that haven’t | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications so ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

  1. [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    64-bit Linux, is it time?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that haven’t
    | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications so
    | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe has not
    | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however its
    | been said on one of Adobe’s blogs that Flash 10 may be released 64-bit.
    | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun’s Java interpreter. 64-bit Java is
    | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It’s unsure
    | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris operating
    | system.
    |
    | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the Linux
    | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should start
    | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit. Software
    | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages aren’t
    | available.
    `----

    http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/


    Recent:

    Using Adobe Flash and other 32-bit applications on 64-bit Linux

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | 64-bit computing is as prevalent today as multicore computing. Almost any new
    | processor from Intel or AMD has the AMD long mode extensions, allowing the
    | processor to use 64-bit registers. While 32-bit processors can address 4
    | gigabytes of RAM, a 64-bit processor can address 16 exabytes, or almost 17.2
    | billion gigabytes, of RAM. Most 64-bit-capable computers aren't making use of
    | these capabilities, but instead are put to work running 32-bit operating
    | systems, usually because of a lack of applications for 64-bit operating
    | systems, since applications must be recompiled and in some cases rewritten
    | for 64-bit operation. It is possible, however, to run 32-bit Linux binaries
    | natively under 64-bit Linux kernels.
    `----

    http://www.linux.com/feature/142075


    Where is 64-bit Linux support for Flash Player?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | From what I’ve heard it works fairly well on most distros but I haven’t heard
    | yet how well it works with the new Flash Player 10 beta. Despite this
    | potential workaround eventually Adobe does need to natively support 64-bit
    | Linux - and they will.
    `----

    http://linux.sys-con.com/read/575735_p.htm


    Related:

    Why There is Better Driver Support in 64-bit Linux Than 64-bit Windows XP

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | In the free world of Linux I have a working, usable, fast
    | and stable 64-bit operating system. In the secret world of
    | Microsoft I will have to return to using the 32-bit version.
    | But the question is will I? I think I will stick with Linux.
    | It looks like I need to go back on my hands and knees and beg
    | forgiveness from my SUSE 10.1 system for every doubting it
    | and for my unfaithful fling with Microsoft.
    `----

    http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story...31-26-RV-HE-MS


    Sigrity Supports 64-bit Linux Computing Platforms

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Sigrity, Inc., the market leader in signal and power integrity
    | software solutions, today announced its full support for 64-bit
    | Linux computing platforms by porting all of its signal and power
    | integrity software products to systems running the 64-bit Linux
    | operating system.
    `----

    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070115/20070115005002.html?.v=1


    iPhone not supported under 64-bit Windows XP or Vista -- oops

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Apple's official (read: the non-marketing document which no one reads)
    | iPhone: Minimum system requirements document does say that "64-bit editions
    | of Windows are not supported." Go ahead, try to find it in the small print,
    | we'll wait...
    `----

    http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/30/i...or-vista-oops/


    iPhone’s 64-bit Windows Incompatibility Investigated

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Is 64-bit Computing Limiting for the Casual User? For the average home user,
    | there is absolutely no need to even consider going this route at this point.
    | When you consider the fact that we remain in a holding pattern with adoption
    | and developers don't appear to be overly anxious to help out those adopters
    | who are using this platform, one has to wonder why anyone is bothering with
    | 64-bit options as this point.
    `----

    http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?op...602&Itemid=449


    Dell doesn't ship 64-bit versions of Vista

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | If you want to install Windows Vista Ultimate with 64 bit version,
    | you can purchase teh version from Dell, as Dell ship only Vista
    | ultimate in 64 bit version. It all happens due to business
    | contract with microsoft.
    `----

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39644


    Vista users get the 64-bit blues

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Microsoft is keen to stir up enthusiasm for Windows Vista, but
    | when it comes to the 64-bit edition of the recently released
    | operating system, the software giant is sending decidedly
    | mixed messages.
    `----

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9273707,00.htm
    http://tinyurl.com/224e3f


    Microsoft Windows Vista: MISLEADING!

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Do you have a 64-bit processor? Did you think you were going to get a
    | 64-bit OS when you purchased your copy of Windows Vista?
    `----

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxDd9iDcZWY


    Next Release of OneCare Won't Support Vista x64

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | When Microsoft announced that it was ready to roll out Windows Live
    | OneCare version 1.5 to coincide with the general release of Windows
    | Vista, it omitted one important fact: the product will not support
    | Vista x64 or XP x64.
    `----

    http://www.microsoft-watch.com/conte...129TX1K0000535
    http://tinyurl.com/26ndme


    Microsoft Vista 64 bit is no go in 2007

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Without an exception, they all think it's too early and the drivers
    | won't be that polished for 64 bit either. AMD and Intel have CPUs which
    | can support 64 operating systems but the drivers are still lame,
    | unpolished and slow compared with 32 bit.
    `----

    http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36938


    Vista 64 VS Vista 32

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Vista 64 has a slight advantage over the 32 Bit version speed
    | wise, unfortunately due to the stringent drivers requirements
    | for the 64 Bit versions, at this point
    | my recommendations are to stick with the 32 Bit version of
    | Vista until most of *hardware manufacturers and software
    | manufactures (including Microsoft) decide to actually take
    | advantage of the 64 Bit architecture!
    | Even better: get serious and do some progress in this
    | industry, I am sick and tired to just see marketing
    | numbers and not actually progress here.
    `----

    http://vistaincompatible.com/forums/...num=1171842357


    Windows XP 64 is crap and things break and printers dont work and
    quickbooks doesnt work the list goes on

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Morale (sic) of the story is - if you are using Microsoft products, stay
    | away from the cutting edge - it sucks pretty bad.
    `----

    http://www.pintmaster.com/20061212/w...-list-goes-on/
    http://tinyurl.com/yguyum


    Support for Microsoft Windows XP x64 Not Worth Anything

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Almost no one is supporting Microsoft Windows XP x64, the 64-bit
    | version of Windows XP.
    |
    | There are no Antivirus programs that work with x64 and most
    | applications won't work with x64 (unless they run the crippled
    | 32-bit equivalent).
    |
    | Programs won't install printer drivers because, apparently, no one
    | can figure out how to write a 64-bit printer driver.
    |
    | If Windows XP x64 has this much trouble with basic elements such
    | as printer drivers, how can anyone expect the much maligned Windows
    | Vista to be of any value?
    |
    | Frankly, my high opinion of Microsoft is quickly fading away, and
    | my shop used to be a staunch Microsoft shop.
    |
    | Open Source alternatives are looking better and better every
    | day.
    `----

    http://roacm.blogspot.com/
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjKQLsACgkQU4xAY3RXLo75AgCeM/ZsCAaPgPR+3ALewshKLRCw
    G7gAnR4QKf3p5G2KIv0Atq06fVOHvkpA
    =VMJk
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop


    "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    news:1311060.HUKxdvdlQ3@schestowitz.com...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > 64-bit Linux, is it time?
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that
    > haven't
    > | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications
    > so
    > | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe has
    > not
    > | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however
    > its
    > | been said on one of Adobe's blogs that Flash 10 may be released 64-bit.
    > | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun's Java interpreter. 64-bit
    > Java is
    > | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It's
    > unsure
    > | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris
    > operating
    > | system.
    > |
    > | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the
    > Linux
    > | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should
    > start
    > | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit.
    > Software
    > | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages aren't
    > | available.
    > `----
    >
    > http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/


    The guy who wrote this blog is entitled to his own opinion but that doesn't
    make it right. I'm a developer and we have a very large enterprise level
    application that we sell. About 95% of our customers use the 32-bit version
    because the 64-bit version of the app generally runs between 5% to 10%
    slower and it requires more resources (memory). The few customers that do
    run the 64-bit version do so because they have such large amounts of data
    that they need the extra address space.

    So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then what
    is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's going
    to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see how
    a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing needs.






  3. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Subway steel wrote:

    >So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then what
    >is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's going
    >to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see how
    >a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing needs


    Unless it's Visduh, for which 2G is about the minimum decent
    configuration, making 4G a very reasonable configuration...

    --
    "Linux is currently going nowhere on the desktop." - "True Linux
    advocate" Hadron Quark

  4. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop


    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:q92lc4pnvk9ua43rjoteu4u2sts0p3an5p@4ax.com...
    > Subway steel wrote:
    >
    >>So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then
    >>what
    >>is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's
    >>going
    >>to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see
    >>how
    >>a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing
    >>needs

    >
    > Unless it's Visduh, for which 2G is about the minimum decent
    > configuration, making 4G a very reasonable configuration...


    A 32-bit OS is certainly able to handle 4 Gigs of memory. Our customers who
    need a 64-bit OS typically have around 192 Gigs of RAM.



    > --
    > "Linux is currently going nowhere on the desktop." - "True Linux
    > advocate" Hadron Quark




  5. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Subway steel wrote:

    >A 32-bit OS is certainly able to handle 4 Gigs of memory.


    XP can use around 3.2, I believe. Is Vidsuh 32-bit better in that
    regard?


  6. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Subway steel on Friday 12 September 2008 14:29 : \____

    >
    > "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    > news:1311060.HUKxdvdlQ3@schestowitz.com...
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> 64-bit Linux, is it time?
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that
    >> haven't
    >> | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications
    >> so
    >> | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe has
    >> not
    >> | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however
    >> its
    >> | been said on one of Adobe's blogs that Flash 10 may be released 64-bit.
    >> | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun's Java interpreter. 64-bit
    >> Java is
    >> | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It's
    >> unsure
    >> | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris
    >> operating
    >> | system.
    >> |
    >> | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the
    >> Linux
    >> | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should
    >> start
    >> | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit.
    >> Software
    >> | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages aren't
    >> | available.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/

    >
    > The guy who wrote this blog is entitled to his own opinion but that doesn't
    > make it right. I'm a developer and we have a very large enterprise level
    > application that we sell. About 95% of our customers use the 32-bit version
    > because the 64-bit version of the app generally runs between 5% to 10%
    > slower and it requires more resources (memory). The few customers that do
    > run the 64-bit version do so because they have such large amounts of data
    > that they need the extra address space.
    >
    > So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then what
    > is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's going
    > to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see how
    > a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing needs.


    True. I think that it's still quite a good option for 'production' desktops
    that do something like rendering and run just a couple of dedicated
    applications anyway. Chip designers too seem to favour 64-bit GNU/Linux
    laptops (seen it in some publications over the past few years).

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    VISTA - Venereally-Infectious, Sexually-Transmitted Aliment
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjKmsAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7Y5gCgnhCQUl3xaF Vfw/x/zXxYlgTL
    MmoAoJ3K77UQ9pNmeX00zHmhga0WqdrC
    =Kbg1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  7. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop


    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:tl5lc4l86ulbsv7ognonplgnkd84gv0hfe@4ax.com...
    > Subway steel wrote:
    >
    >>A 32-bit OS is certainly able to handle 4 Gigs of memory.

    >
    > XP can use around 3.2, I believe. Is Vidsuh 32-bit better in that
    > regard?
    >


    Just like it does with 32-bit Linux, it depends on the hardware. The maximum
    addressable address space is 4 Gigs. Emphasis on 'maximum' because in
    reality it's going to be lower. Some of the 4-gig address space is going to
    be allocated to the PCI bus, network card, BIOS, video card, etc. If you
    have a 512 Meg video card then that's a 1/2 Gig of address space right there
    that can't be used by the RAM.

    - ss



  8. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Roy Schestowitz writes:

    > ____/ Subway steel on Friday 12 September 2008 14:29 : \____
    >
    >>
    >> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >> news:1311060.HUKxdvdlQ3@schestowitz.com...
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> 64-bit Linux, is it time?
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that
    >>> haven't
    >>> | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications
    >>> so
    >>> | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe has
    >>> not
    >>> | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however
    >>> its
    >>> | been said on one of Adobe's blogs that Flash 10 may be released 64-bit.
    >>> | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun's Java interpreter. 64-bit
    >>> Java is
    >>> | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It's
    >>> unsure
    >>> | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris
    >>> operating
    >>> | system.
    >>> |
    >>> | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the
    >>> Linux
    >>> | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should
    >>> start
    >>> | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit.
    >>> Software
    >>> | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages aren't
    >>> | available.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/

    >>
    >> The guy who wrote this blog is entitled to his own opinion but that doesn't
    >> make it right. I'm a developer and we have a very large enterprise level
    >> application that we sell. About 95% of our customers use the 32-bit version
    >> because the 64-bit version of the app generally runs between 5% to 10%
    >> slower and it requires more resources (memory). The few customers that do
    >> run the 64-bit version do so because they have such large amounts of data
    >> that they need the extra address space.
    >>
    >> So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then what
    >> is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's going
    >> to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see how
    >> a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing needs.

    >
    > True. I think that it's still quite a good option for 'production' desktops
    > that do something like rendering and run just a couple of dedicated
    > applications anyway. Chip designers too seem to favour 64-bit GNU/Linux
    > laptops (seen it in some publications over the past few years).


    Bull****. *SOME* might prefer it. Why do you tell lies so often?

    You know others will pick up on it and call you out on them. So Why do
    it?

  9. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop


    "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    news:1733603.KUf3eGiOSO@schestowitz.com...
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > ____/ Subway steel on Friday 12 September 2008 14:29 : \____
    >
    >>
    >> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >> news:1311060.HUKxdvdlQ3@schestowitz.com...
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> 64-bit Linux, is it time?
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that
    >>> haven't
    >>> | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications
    >>> so
    >>> | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe
    >>> has
    >>> not
    >>> | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however
    >>> its
    >>> | been said on one of Adobe's blogs that Flash 10 may be released
    >>> 64-bit.
    >>> | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun's Java interpreter. 64-bit
    >>> Java is
    >>> | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It's
    >>> unsure
    >>> | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris
    >>> operating
    >>> | system.
    >>> |
    >>> | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the
    >>> Linux
    >>> | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should
    >>> start
    >>> | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit.
    >>> Software
    >>> | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages
    >>> aren't
    >>> | available.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/

    >>
    >> The guy who wrote this blog is entitled to his own opinion but that
    >> doesn't
    >> make it right. I'm a developer and we have a very large enterprise level
    >> application that we sell. About 95% of our customers use the 32-bit
    >> version
    >> because the 64-bit version of the app generally runs between 5% to 10%
    >> slower and it requires more resources (memory). The few customers that do
    >> run the 64-bit version do so because they have such large amounts of data
    >> that they need the extra address space.
    >>
    >> So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then
    >> what
    >> is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's
    >> going
    >> to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see
    >> how
    >> a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing
    >> needs.

    >
    > True. I think that it's still quite a good option for 'production'
    > desktops
    > that do something like rendering and run just a couple of dedicated
    > applications anyway. Chip designers too seem to favour 64-bit GNU/Linux
    > laptops (seen it in some publications over the past few years).


    I'll agree that a 64-bit desktop is good for specialized use. For the
    general user who surfs the web, writes documents and reads email there
    really isn't much benefit. But if someone is doing so very CPU intensive
    work, video production, CAD-CAM, etc then the ability to move 64-bits of
    data around at a time would benefit those specific users.

    - ss



    > - --
    > ~~ Best of wishes
    >
    > VISTA - Venereally-Infectious, Sexually-Transmitted Aliment
    > http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    > http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
    >
    > iEYEARECAAYFAkjKmsAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7Y5gCgnhCQUl3xaF Vfw/x/zXxYlgTL
    > MmoAoJ3K77UQ9pNmeX00zHmhga0WqdrC
    > =Kbg1
    > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




  10. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    "Subway steel" writes:

    > "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    > news:1733603.KUf3eGiOSO@schestowitz.com...
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> ____/ Subway steel on Friday 12 September 2008 14:29 : \____
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >>> news:1311060.HUKxdvdlQ3@schestowitz.com...
    >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>>
    >>>> 64-bit Linux, is it time?
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>>> | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that
    >>>> haven't
    >>>> | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications
    >>>> so
    >>>> | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe
    >>>> has
    >>>> not
    >>>> | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however
    >>>> its
    >>>> | been said on one of Adobe's blogs that Flash 10 may be released
    >>>> 64-bit.
    >>>> | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun's Java interpreter. 64-bit
    >>>> Java is
    >>>> | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It's
    >>>> unsure
    >>>> | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris
    >>>> operating
    >>>> | system.
    >>>> |
    >>>> | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the
    >>>> Linux
    >>>> | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should
    >>>> start
    >>>> | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit.
    >>>> Software
    >>>> | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages
    >>>> aren't
    >>>> | available.
    >>>> `----
    >>>>
    >>>> http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/
    >>>
    >>> The guy who wrote this blog is entitled to his own opinion but that
    >>> doesn't
    >>> make it right. I'm a developer and we have a very large enterprise level
    >>> application that we sell. About 95% of our customers use the 32-bit
    >>> version
    >>> because the 64-bit version of the app generally runs between 5% to 10%
    >>> slower and it requires more resources (memory). The few customers that do
    >>> run the 64-bit version do so because they have such large amounts of data
    >>> that they need the extra address space.
    >>>
    >>> So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then
    >>> what
    >>> is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's
    >>> going
    >>> to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see
    >>> how
    >>> a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing
    >>> needs.

    >>
    >> True. I think that it's still quite a good option for 'production'
    >> desktops
    >> that do something like rendering and run just a couple of dedicated
    >> applications anyway. Chip designers too seem to favour 64-bit GNU/Linux
    >> laptops (seen it in some publications over the past few years).

    >
    > I'll agree that a 64-bit desktop is good for specialized use. For the
    > general user who surfs the web, writes documents and reads email there
    > really isn't much benefit. But if someone is doing so very CPU
    > intensive


    And some good reasons not to use it. Like reduced functionality with
    some closed source apps you might need. And up to double the memory
    usage in certain cases. Ask Koehlmann. We schooled him in that recently
    and Tim even posted some numbers to shoot Peter down in flames.

    > work, video production, CAD-CAM, etc then the ability to move 64-bits of
    > data around at a time would benefit those specific users.


    In some cases.

  11. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Subway steel wrote:

    >
    > "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    > news:1311060.HUKxdvdlQ3@schestowitz.com...
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> 64-bit Linux, is it time?
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that
    >> haven't
    >> | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications
    >> so
    >> | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe
    >> | has
    >> not
    >> | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however
    >> its
    >> | been said on one of Adobe's blogs that Flash 10 may be released 64-bit.
    >> | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun's Java interpreter. 64-bit
    >> Java is
    >> | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It's
    >> unsure
    >> | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris
    >> operating
    >> | system.
    >> |
    >> | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the
    >> Linux
    >> | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should
    >> start
    >> | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit.
    >> Software
    >> | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages
    >> | aren't available.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/

    >
    > The guy who wrote this blog is entitled to his own opinion but that
    > doesn't make it right. I'm a developer and we have a very large enterprise
    > level application that we sell. About 95% of our customers use the 32-bit
    > version because the 64-bit version of the app generally runs between 5% to
    > 10% slower and it requires more resources (memory). The few customers that
    > do run the 64-bit version do so because they have such large amounts of
    > data that they need the extra address space.


    That is because you are using windows64

    Linux 64bit is *faster* than linux 32bit in most cases

    < snip >
    --
    To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it.
    To mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.


  12. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop


    "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    news:48caab07$0$3550$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    > Subway steel wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Roy Schestowitz" wrote in message
    >> news:1311060.HUKxdvdlQ3@schestowitz.com...
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> 64-bit Linux, is it time?
    >>>
    >>> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> | On the Linux platform, there are still some issues with software that
    >>> haven't
    >>> | been compiled for 64-bit. However, they are closed source applications
    >>> so
    >>> | getting them to work for 64-bit is up to the software company. Adobe
    >>> | has
    >>> not
    >>> | yet released a 64-bit version of their venerable Flash plugin, however
    >>> its
    >>> | been said on one of Adobe's blogs that Flash 10 may be released
    >>> 64-bit.
    >>> | Another package is a 64-bit version of Sun's Java interpreter. 64-bit
    >>> Java is
    >>> | available for Windows and (surprise) Solaris, but not for Linux. It's
    >>> unsure
    >>> | if Sun is not offering 64-bit Linux binaries because of its Solaris
    >>> operating
    >>> | system.
    >>> |
    >>> | Hopefully the points discussed here will start to take shape in the
    >>> Linux
    >>> | world. Distributions should start marketing 64-bit. Programmers should
    >>> start
    >>> | adjusting their code for 64-bit, while not taking away from 32-bit.
    >>> Software
    >>> | companies should provide 64-bit binaries when the source packages
    >>> | aren't available.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> http://blog.jeffanderson.us/64-bit-linux-is-it-time/

    >>
    >> The guy who wrote this blog is entitled to his own opinion but that
    >> doesn't make it right. I'm a developer and we have a very large
    >> enterprise
    >> level application that we sell. About 95% of our customers use the 32-bit
    >> version because the 64-bit version of the app generally runs between 5%
    >> to
    >> 10% slower and it requires more resources (memory). The few customers
    >> that
    >> do run the 64-bit version do so because they have such large amounts of
    >> data that they need the extra address space.

    >


    > That is because you are using windows64


    You actually have absolutely zero idea of what we're using. And it's not
    Win64. Customers who have systems with dozens of processor cores and
    192-Gigs (or more) of memory aren't the type of customer that runs Windows.


    > Linux 64bit is *faster* than linux 32bit in most cases


    We also build for 64-bit Linux and it is definitely NOT faster than our same
    application running on 32-bit Linux.



    > < snip >
    > --
    > To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it.
    > To mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
    >




  13. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Subway steel wrote:

    >
    >"chrisv" wrote in message
    >news:tl5lc4l86ulbsv7ognonplgnkd84gv0hfe@4ax.com...
    >> Subway steel wrote:
    >>
    >>>A 32-bit OS is certainly able to handle 4 Gigs of memory.

    >>
    >> XP can use around 3.2, I believe. Is Vidsuh 32-bit better in that
    >> regard?

    >
    >Just like it does with 32-bit Linux, it depends on the hardware. The maximum
    >addressable address space is 4 Gigs. Emphasis on 'maximum' because in
    >reality it's going to be lower. Some of the 4-gig address space is going to
    >be allocated to the PCI bus, network card, BIOS, video card, etc. If you
    >have a 512 Meg video card then that's a 1/2 Gig of address space right there
    >that can't be used by the RAM.


    The point remains, once one jumps over 2G (typically to 4G), one
    starts to think "I should have a 64-bit OS to take advantage of this."


  14. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Subway steel wrote:

    < snip >

    >> That is because you are using windows64

    >
    > You actually have absolutely zero idea of what we're using. And it's not
    > Win64.


    Claim all you want. Win64 is currently the only OS which is *slower in 64bit
    mode than in 32bit mode

    > Customers who have systems with dozens of processor cores and
    > 192-Gigs (or more) of memory aren't the type of customer that runs
    > Windows.


    Fine

    >
    >> Linux 64bit is *faster* than linux 32bit in most cases

    >
    > We also build for 64-bit Linux and it is definitely NOT faster than our
    > same application running on 32-bit Linux.
    >


    Why do you think that you are the only guy in town having experience with
    it?
    Hint: I am a developer. And I know for a fact that 64bit software on the
    very same machine type is *faster* than the equivalent 32bit one. Because I
    have tested it

    >
    >> < snip >
    >> --
    >> To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it.
    >> To mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
    >>


    Note: You are using such ridiculous crappy software, it does not even delete
    a quoted sig when answering.

    --
    Micro$oft. What's broken today?


  15. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
    > Subway steel wrote:
    >> "chrisv" wrote in message
    >> news:tl5lc4l86ulbsv7ognonplgnkd84gv0hfe@4ax.com...
    >>> Subway steel wrote:


    >>>> A 32-bit OS is certainly able to handle 4 Gigs of memory.
    >>>
    >>> XP can use around 3.2, I believe. Is Vidsuh 32-bit better in
    >>> that regard?

    >>
    >> Just like it does with 32-bit Linux


    Not quite.

    Windows support for PAE over 4GB is not standard on Desktop systems, and
    requires *paying* huge amounts for enterprise products.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physica...ension#Windows

    Linux support for PAE up to 64GB is free.

    Both systems have the same hardware requirements, however unlike under
    Linux, the Windows driver model doesn't scale well, hence the limitation
    on Windows Desktops. One could attribute that to apathy or greed ... or
    more likely both.

    Then there's Vista:

    In theory, a 32-bit operating system should be able to support 232 bytes
    = 4GB memory. Thus the first reaction usually is that the memory chips
    or with the mainboard has a hardware defect. Unfortunately, that’s not
    the case. Vista can indeed address 4GB of memory. However, the maximum
    amount of RAM that can be used by the system and applications is 3.12 GB.

    The cause for this is the so-called memory-mapped I/O (MMIO). Some
    devices need a dedicated space in memory. A typical example is a video
    card that utilizes the system memory. Now, you might object that your
    video card has its own memory and you didn’t install any additional
    devices that could occupy so much RAM.

    Well, for compatibility reasons Vista reserves memory for devices even
    if they don’t exist in your computer. That means that if you have 4GB
    RAM in your computer and Vista displays only 3.12 GB available memory,
    about 1GB is indeed not used by the OS. You might as well remove it.
    That is quite strange, isn’t it? I am not a system programmer, but for
    me that seems to be a design error, probably one that is very old.
    http://4sysops.com/archives/why-wind...ols-its-users/


    >> The maximum addressable address space is 4 Gigs. Emphasis on
    >> 'maximum' because in reality it's going to be lower.


    On wasteful and bloated systems like Windows, certainly *much* lower.

    > The point remains, once one jumps over 2G (typically to 4G), one
    > starts to think "I should have a 64-bit OS to take advantage of
    > this."


    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | By bucking Microsoft for open source, says Gunderloy, "I'm no
    | longer contributing to the eventual death of programming."
    | ~ http://www.linux.com/feature/142083
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    05:33:59 up 28 days, 2:47, 4 users, load average: 0.02, 0.12, 0.40

  16. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    * Homer peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > http://4sysops.com/archives/why-wind...ols-its-users/


    There is a KB article

    http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...9605&x=13&y=19

    about this issue which offers a "workaround" though. All
    you have to do is to install Vista x64 instead of Vista x86.

    *LOL*

    Vista's 64-bit edition is indeed capable of handling more
    memory. Note that it is not possible to upgrade Vista x86 to Vista
    x64. That's why I find it somehow funny that they sell this
    solution as a workaround. I will post some articles about the Vista
    x86 vs. Vista x64 issue very soon. So if you think of going this
    route, you might as well wait some more days before you make up your
    mind. In the meantime you can read a former article about the Vista
    x86 vs. Vista x64 issue.

    http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x6...vista-edition/

    Wait, wait. It gets funnier!

    You might think that Microsoft found an even better workaround,
    though. It is Service Pack 1. I have read about this before, but
    today I tried it myself. I installed Vista on a brand new HP PC with
    4GB RAM. As expected Vista's System Properties only displayed
    about 3 GB RAM. After I installed SP1, the amount of RAM was
    increased as if by a miracle (see screenshots) to 4GB. You might
    think that Microsoft corrected this design error, but unfortunately
    that is not the case.

    All they did is to change what is displayed in the System Properties.

    --
    To know Edina is to reject it.
    -- Dudley Riggs, "The Year the Grinch Stole the Election"

  17. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Subway steel wrote:


    >> Linux 64bit is *faster* than linux 32bit in most cases

    >
    > We also build for 64-bit Linux and it is definitely NOT faster than our
    > same application running on 32-bit Linux.



    Spoken like a true windummy.
    64 bit apps are slower if they haven't been designed/ported properly - a
    common problem in the windummy world and a well known fact.

    A true 64 bit application that requires more than 4Gb address/data space
    will run around an order of magnitude faster than your 32 bit app.

    Most databases are now way over that 4Gb limit so 64 bit is the only way
    to go - but with the caveat that all the software has to be ported
    correctly. This is not a problem under Linux and open source because
    the source code is available to fix all the issues. Thats why Linux
    solutions and 64 bit solutions on Linux is way ahead.

    The windummy world is dying because there is no open source code
    and micoshaft can't afford enough engineers to repair their bit rot
    infected code, and neither can anyone locked into windummy applications
    Those who are not locked into micoshaft and windummy applications
    have enjoyed for years the benefits of high speed 64 bit computing
    and Linux solutions managing their IT departments full and well.


  18. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    7 writes:

    > Subway steel wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> Linux 64bit is *faster* than linux 32bit in most cases

    >>
    >> We also build for 64-bit Linux and it is definitely NOT faster than our
    >> same application running on 32-bit Linux.

    >
    >
    > Spoken like a true windummy.
    > 64 bit apps are slower if they haven't been designed/ported properly - a
    > common problem in the windummy world and a well known fact.
    >
    > A true 64 bit application that requires more than 4Gb address/data space
    > will run around an order of magnitude faster than your 32 bit app.


    Liar.

    >
    > Most databases are now way over that 4Gb limit so 64 bit is the only way
    > to go - but with the caveat that all the software has to be ported
    > correctly. This is not a problem under Linux and open source because
    > the source code is available to fix all the issues. Thats why Linux
    > solutions and 64 bit solutions on Linux is way ahead.
    >
    > The windummy world is dying because there is no open source code
    > and micoshaft can't afford enough engineers to repair their bit rot
    > infected code, and neither can anyone locked into windummy applications
    > Those who are not locked into micoshaft and windummy applications
    > have enjoyed for years the benefits of high speed 64 bit computing
    > and Linux solutions managing their IT departments full and well.
    >


    --
    It explains a lot. I've not heard of anyone I know, anywhere, buying XP,
    and I've not seen it sold whilst I've been in any shops.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  19. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    > * Homer peremptorily fired off this memo:


    >> http://4sysops.com/archives/why-wind...ols-its-users/

    >
    > There is a KB article
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...9605&x=13&y=19
    >
    > about this issue which offers a "workaround" though. All you have to
    > do is to install Vista x64 instead of Vista x86.


    At which point you have an OS with almost no compatible software or
    drivers, unlike Linux which has near-parity across several architectures
    - including AMD64 ... but only for Free Software of course (e.g. not Flash).

    > *LOL*


    Windows: The Limited OS.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | By bucking Microsoft for open source, says Gunderloy, "I'm no
    | longer contributing to the eventual death of programming."
    | ~ http://www.linux.com/feature/142083
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    22:33:04 up 28 days, 19:46, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.24, 0.29

  20. Re: [News] 64-bit Linux Claimed More Sensible for the Desktop

    Homer wrote:
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    >> * Homer peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    >>> http://4sysops.com/archives/why-wind...ols-its-users/

    >> There is a KB article
    >>
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=k...9605&x=13&y=19
    >>
    >> about this issue which offers a "workaround" though. All you have to
    >> do is to install Vista x64 instead of Vista x86.

    >
    > At which point you have an OS with almost no compatible software or
    > drivers, unlike Linux which has near-parity across several architectures
    > - including AMD64 ... but only for Free Software of course (e.g. not Flash).
    >


    You can d/l the amd64 .deb (Flash 10 beta) from packages.ubuntu.com but
    I found it to be worse at the moment.

    >> *LOL*

    >
    > Windows: The Limited OS.
    >


    --
    Norman
    Registered Linux user #461062

+ Reply to Thread