Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #1061 > unrolled thread

Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS??

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-02-27 18:07 +0000
    Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-27 20:05 +0100
      Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-27 20:39 +0100
      Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-02-27 22:04 +0100
        Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-28 00:06 +0100
          Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-02-29 20:49 +0100
        Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Dave <noone$$@llondel.org> - 2012-02-28 07:28 +0000
      Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2012-03-02 22:42 +0100
        Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-03-03 00:18 +0100
          Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-03-03 09:27 +0000
    Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? DenverD <DenverD@invalid.dk> - 2012-02-27 22:54 +0100
      Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SPAMvalette@free.fr> - 2012-02-27 23:46 +0100
    Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com> - 2012-02-28 02:32 +0000
      Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric VALETTE <ericNo.Spamvalette@free.fr> - 2012-02-28 10:04 +0100
        Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-02-28 11:30 -0600
          Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SPAMvalette@free.fr> - 2012-02-28 19:21 +0100
            Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-02-28 15:50 -0600
              Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SpamValette@free.fr> - 2012-02-29 22:11 +0100
          Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SPAMvalette@free.fr> - 2012-02-28 19:23 +0100
            Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-02-28 15:51 -0600
              Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SpamValette@free.fr> - 2012-02-29 22:45 +0100
        Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com> - 2012-02-28 20:32 +0000
          Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SpamValette@free.fr> - 2012-02-29 22:12 +0100
            Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com> - 2012-03-01 05:47 +0000
              Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric VALETTE <ericNo.Spamvalette@free.fr> - 2012-03-01 10:32 +0100
                Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-03-01 13:54 -0600
                  Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SpamValette@free.fr> - 2012-03-02 23:18 +0100
                    Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-03-05 15:08 -0600
                  Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SpamValette@free.fr> - 2012-03-02 23:18 +0100
                Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com> - 2012-03-02 00:40 +0000
                  Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Eric Valette <EricNo.SpamValette@free.fr> - 2012-03-02 23:37 +0100
                    Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com> - 2012-03-03 18:04 +0000
                    Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-03-05 15:16 -0600
    Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-02-28 15:56 +0000
      Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Bob Tennent <BobT@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-02-28 16:52 +0000
        Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-02-28 19:24 +0000
          Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-02-28 15:53 -0600
            Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-02-28 22:15 +0000
              Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-02-28 17:12 -0600
                Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2012-02-29 02:43 +0000
                  Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-02-29 12:35 -0600
                    Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Bob Tennent <BobT@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-02-29 19:51 +0000
          Re: Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS?? Bob Tennent <BobT@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-02-28 22:36 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#1091

On 28/02/2012 22:51, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>> Benchmarks show the contrary...
>
>      Your apparent desperation to over-hype 64-bit is most peculiar.
>
>


The fact that you say something without any proof is quite simplrising also:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1

I saw other performance figure on video nvidia showing better 
performance for 64 bits also. Data IO/file system cache performanc is 
good for nearly usage.

--eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1078

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:04:01 +0100, Eric VALETTE wrote:

> On 02/28/2012 03:32 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:07:40 +0000, ray wrote:
>>
>>> Would there be any particular advantage to running a 64 bit version
>>> of, say, Debian on a netbook which is limited to 2gb RAM but does have
>>> a 64 bit Atom processor?
>>
>> No.
> 
> Yes.

For example?

Stef

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1090

On 28/02/2012 21:32, Stefan Patric wrote:

> For example?


Take the time to read the post ;-)

--eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1092

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:12:33 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:

> On 28/02/2012 21:32, Stefan Patric wrote:
> 
>> For example?
> 
> Take the time to read the post ;-)
> 
> --eric

I did.  I also read the few responses (and the OP's replies with 
additional information on what the netbook was to be used for) that were 
posted before my response.  And my answer is still the same:  No, there 
is no ". . . particular advantage . . ." to running a 64-bit OS on a 2GB 
netbook even though it has a 64-bit processor.  In fact, there is a 
distinct disadvantage:  the 64-bit OS will use more RAM to do EVERYTHING, 
and it is quite possible that overall system performance will suffer. It 
did in my case.

System was a 2.0GHZ single core Athlon64, 2GB RAM, Fedora Core 6 32 & 64-
bit dual boot (for comparing purposes--64-bit was not well supported 
then).  Built January 2007.  With the 32-bit OS, 2GB was fine.  Never hit 
the swap during normal use.  But with 64-bit under the same use, 2GB was 
marginal. Although the system was still very usable, it used swap 
frequently.  When I upgraded to 4GB RAM, the swapping ceased.

Stef

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1093

On 03/01/2012 06:47 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:12:33 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:

> distinct disadvantage:  the 64-bit OS will use more RAM to do EVERYTHING,
> and it is quite possible that overall system performance will suffer. It
> did in my case.

Well I have 2 HTPC with atom + nvidia card with only 2 GB and 512 MB 
shared memory for ION GPU and I do not swap although I run KDE 4.7.4 and 
XBMC which are not particularly lightweight. However I have no 32 bits 
application nor 32 bits application support (libs) at all as I do not 
need them and the kernel is tuned to include only the strict necessary 
drivers.

I see a huge performance boost is term of booting time (disk IO+ cache) 
and application launch and GPU is also more performance for HD decoding.

-- eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1095

On 2012-03-01, Eric VALETTE <ericNo.Spamvalette@free.fr> wrote:
> On 03/01/2012 06:47 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:12:33 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
>
>> distinct disadvantage:  the 64-bit OS will use more RAM to do EVERYTHING,
>> and it is quite possible that overall system performance will suffer. It
>> did in my case.
>
> Well I have 2 HTPC with atom + nvidia card with only 2 GB and 512 MB 
> shared memory for ION GPU and I do not swap although I run KDE 4.7.4 and 
> XBMC which are not particularly lightweight. However I have no 32 bits 
> application nor 32 bits application support (libs) at all as I do not 
> need them and the kernel is tuned to include only the strict necessary 
> drivers.
>
> I see a huge performance boost is term of booting time (disk IO+ cache) 
> and application launch and GPU is also more performance for HD decoding.

    That's the single most important thing in that system and it's primarily
down to an issue of support. Either suitable drivers are available or they
aren't. That likely leaves the entire solution dependent on "working" or
"not working at all" depending on 3rd party support.

    Plus differing bits of non-CPU kit can make a visible difference.

    Based on the benchmarks trotted out, application support also seems to 
be a big issue and varies wildly depending on the benchmark or use case you
choose to fixate on.

-- 

   Unauthorized distribution of your work is going to happen. That      ||| 
particular genie left the bottle a long time ago. You can either be    / | \ 
cool about it and possibly gain from it or big the biggest jerk you   
can be and alienate potential fans.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1099

On 01/03/2012 20:54, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>      That's the single most important thing in that system and it's primarily
> down to an issue of support. Either suitable drivers are available or they
> aren't. That likely leaves the entire solution dependent on "working" or
> "not working at all" depending on 3rd party support.

Bla bla bla.

Can you be a bit concrete? What application or driver do you actually 
miss on 64 bits system? I use such system at work and have no problem at 
all with drivers and applications. 64 bits flash support is available, 
as well as graphical driver which are often proprietary. For the rest it 
is open source and available for 32 or 64 bits. If you start feeding 
Linux with proprietary application, I guess you completely miss the 
point of using OSS software.


>
>      Plus differing bits of non-CPU kit can make a visible difference.
>
>      Based on the benchmarks trotted out, application support also seems to
> be a big issue and varies wildly depending on the benchmark or use case you
> choose to fixate on.

bla bla bla.

--eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1105

On 2012-03-02, Eric Valette <EricNo.SpamValette@free.fr> wrote:
> On 01/03/2012 20:54, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>>      That's the single most important thing in that system and it's primarily
>> down to an issue of support. Either suitable drivers are available or they
>> aren't. That likely leaves the entire solution dependent on "working" or
>> "not working at all" depending on 3rd party support.
>
> Bla bla bla.

    You clearly don't want to be bothered with actual user requiements.

-- 

   Apple: Power users are not welcome here.                             |||
                                                                       / | \

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1100

On 01/03/2012 20:54, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>      That's the single most important thing in that system and it's primarily
> down to an issue of support. Either suitable drivers are available or they
> aren't. That likely leaves the entire solution dependent on "working" or
> "not working at all" depending on 3rd party support.

Bla bla bla.

Can you be a bit concrete? What application or driver do you actually 
miss on 64 bits system? I use such system at work and have no problem at 
all with drivers and applications. 64 bits flash support is available, 
as well as graphical driver which are often proprietary. For the rest it 
is open source and available for 32 or 64 bits. If you start feeding 
Linux with proprietary application, I guess you completely miss the 
point of using OSS software.


>
>      Plus differing bits of non-CPU kit can make a visible difference.
>
>      Based on the benchmarks trotted out, application support also seems to
> be a big issue and varies wildly depending on the benchmark or use case you
> choose to fixate on.

bla bla bla.

--eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1096

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:32:21 +0100, Eric VALETTE wrote:

> On 03/01/2012 06:47 AM, Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:12:33 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:
> 
>> distinct disadvantage:  the 64-bit OS will use more RAM to do
>> EVERYTHING, and it is quite possible that overall system performance
>> will suffer. It did in my case.
> 
> Well I have 2 HTPC with atom + nvidia card with only 2 GB and 512 MB
> shared memory for ION GPU and I do not swap although I run KDE 4.7.4 and
> XBMC which are not particularly lightweight. However I have no 32 bits
> application nor 32 bits application support (libs) at all as I do not
> need them and the kernel is tuned to include only the strict necessary
> drivers.
> 
> I see a huge performance boost is term of booting time (disk IO+ cache)
> and application launch and GPU is also more performance for HD decoding.

Well, what can I say?  There have been improvements in 5 years.

A few months ago, I had to replace the motherboard in that system of mine 
built in 2007 now with a 3.0GHz Athlon64 X2, and Fedora 12 64-bit.  Still 
with 4GB RAM though.  There were readily noticeable improvements in 
performance even though the other components remained the same.  I just 
swapped them out.  Didn't even change the OS.  Just plugged in the hard 
drive, and the damn thing booted right up without a hitch.  Surprised the 
hell out of me.  Thought, at the very least, I'd have to do some 
troubleshooting.  Or <dread> a complete reinstall.  Sometimes, I get 
lucky.

Stef

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1101

On 02/03/2012 01:40, Stefan Patric wrote:

>> I see a huge performance boost is term of booting time (disk IO+ cache)
>> and application launch and GPU is also more performance for HD decoding.
>
> Well, what can I say?  There have been improvements in 5 years.

What I did was: I first installed on a first HTPC with 32 bits because, 
like others I naively though 64 bits was an overkill. After reading the 
phoronix benchmarks, I decided to test a 64 bits install on exactly the 
same HTPC hardware (same memory, same disk, ..) but a different physical 
machine. When I saw the 64 bits system was rock solid and more 
performant, I wiped out the first install and cloned the second one on 
the first installed hardware.

So it was not a matter of improvement due to time: I had the same debian 
package set (except the 32vs 64 bits), at the same version on the two 
HTPC when comparing performances.

There are some very specific areas were optimized routine exist for IA32 
(e.g using SSEx instruction) and not of X64 (typically compression 
algorithm, or video/audio codec). There you may have better performance 
on IA32.

--eric

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1104

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 23:37:38 +0100, Eric Valette wrote:

> On 02/03/2012 01:40, Stefan Patric wrote:
> 
>>> I see a huge performance boost is term of booting time (disk IO+
>>> cache) and application launch and GPU is also more performance for HD
>>> decoding.
>>
>> Well, what can I say?  There have been improvements in 5 years.
> 
> What I did was: I first installed on a first HTPC with 32 bits because,
> like others I naively though 64 bits was an overkill. After reading the
> phoronix benchmarks, I decided to test a 64 bits install on exactly the
> same HTPC hardware (same memory, same disk, ..) but a different physical
> machine. When I saw the 64 bits system was rock solid and more
> performant, I wiped out the first install and cloned the second one on
> the first installed hardware.
> 
> So it was not a matter of improvement due to time: I had the same debian
> package set (except the 32vs 64 bits), at the same version on the two
> HTPC when comparing performances.
> 
> There are some very specific areas were optimized routine exist for IA32
> (e.g using SSEx instruction) and not of X64 (typically compression
> algorithm, or video/audio codec). There you may have better performance
> on IA32.
> 
> --eric

I disagree.  The improvements -- faster bus speeds, faster RAM and more 
importantly better code optimization -- make a big difference.  So much 
so, that today you can expect better performance with 64-bit as compared 
to 32-bit which you discovered with your HTPCs than I did from 5 or 6 
years ago when I ran my little test on my new Fedora Core 6-based system 
which was "cutting edge" at the time.  (Now, it's an antique.;-) )

So, even with your example, I would still recommend to the OP for his 4 
old (or so) Atom-based EeePC with 2GB RAM that (in his case) he generally 
stick with a 32-bit OS.  It is sufficient for HIS needs.  However, if he 
truly wanted 64-bit regardless, I'd suggest an efficient distro like 
Debian with a lot of tweaking, or something like Gentoo compiled direct 
from source, then, yes, try 64-bit even with 2GB RAM.  Might just work 
well enough.

Stef 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1106

On 2012-03-02, Eric Valette <EricNo.SpamValette@free.fr> wrote:
> On 02/03/2012 01:40, Stefan Patric wrote:
>
>>> I see a huge performance boost is term of booting time (disk IO+ cache)
>>> and application launch and GPU is also more performance for HD decoding.
>>
>> Well, what can I say?  There have been improvements in 5 years.
>
> What I did was: I first installed on a first HTPC with 32 bits because, 
> like others I naively though 64 bits was an overkill. After reading the 
> phoronix benchmarks, I decided to test a 64 bits install on exactly the 

...which indicate that general transcoding and decoding tasks don't much
benefit from switching to 64 bits. It just doesn't matter. At best it's
just not something to get terribly excited about.

[deletia]

   You're far better off fixating on the video card. 

-- 

   Apple: Power users are not welcome here.                             |||
                                                                       / | \

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1072

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:07:40 +0000, ray wrote:

> Would there be any particular advantage to running a 64 bit version of,
> say, Debian on a netbook which is limited to 2gb RAM but does have a 64
> bit Atom processor?

Thanks for the responses. This machine will not be doing elaborate 
things. I'll do typical stuff - surf, check e-mail. I'll also be doing 
some web page maintenance and development - may get into some android 
apps later.

Got a good buy on an Acer Aspire One D257 (with dual core Atom) - 1gb of 
ram which I'll probably up to 2gb. The mobo has one slot good for 2gb. 
Also has a 320gb hard drive. 

I checked on Acer's policy for refunding the MS tax (since it came with 
win7 starter) - you send them the computer at your expense, they wipe the 
drive and remove the MS label then return it. You might get around $35 
back.

Installed Debian-32 yesterday - having a little difficulty getting the 
wifi going - I think I have all the pieces in place now and just need to 
reboot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1073

On 28 Feb 2012 15:56:42 GMT, ray wrote:
 > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:07:40 +0000, ray wrote:
 >
 >> Would there be any particular advantage to running a 64 bit version of,
 >> say, Debian on a netbook which is limited to 2gb RAM but does have a 64
 >> bit Atom processor?
 >
 > Thanks for the responses. This machine will not be doing elaborate 
 > things. I'll do typical stuff - surf, check e-mail. I'll also be doing 
 > some web page maintenance and development - may get into some android 
 > apps later.
 >
 > Got a good buy on an Acer Aspire One D257 (with dual core Atom) - 1gb of 
 > ram which I'll probably up to 2gb. The mobo has one slot good for 2gb. 
 > Also has a 320gb hard drive. 

Unless you really need that much space, consider replacing the
hard drive by an SSD. Much faster, lighter, quieter, more robust,
longer-lasting battery charge. You can use the hard drive as an external
USB drive for large files and backups.

Bob T.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1077

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:52:44 +0000, Bob Tennent wrote:

> On 28 Feb 2012 15:56:42 GMT, ray wrote:
>  > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:07:40 +0000, ray wrote:
>  >
>  >> Would there be any particular advantage to running a 64 bit version
>  >> of, say, Debian on a netbook which is limited to 2gb RAM but does
>  >> have a 64 bit Atom processor?
>  >
>  > Thanks for the responses. This machine will not be doing elaborate
>  > things. I'll do typical stuff - surf, check e-mail. I'll also be
>  > doing some web page maintenance and development - may get into some
>  > android apps later.
>  >
>  > Got a good buy on an Acer Aspire One D257 (with dual core Atom) - 1gb
>  > of ram which I'll probably up to 2gb. The mobo has one slot good for
>  > 2gb. Also has a 320gb hard drive.
> 
> Unless you really need that much space, consider replacing the hard
> drive by an SSD. Much faster, lighter, quieter, more robust,
> longer-lasting battery charge. You can use the hard drive as an external
> USB drive for large files and backups.
> 
> Bob T.

Thanks for the suggestion. I recently upgraded my wife's eeepc from an 
older 4gb SSD to a new 32gb SSD and increased the RAM from 1gb to 2 - 
made quite a difference in performance with the new drive - specs say 
it's about 3-5x faster doing i/o and hdparm confirms that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1081

On 2012-02-28, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:52:44 +0000, Bob Tennent wrote:
>
>> On 28 Feb 2012 15:56:42 GMT, ray wrote:
>>  > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:07:40 +0000, ray wrote:
>>  >
>>  >> Would there be any particular advantage to running a 64 bit version
>>  >> of, say, Debian on a netbook which is limited to 2gb RAM but does
>>  >> have a 64 bit Atom processor?
>>  >
>>  > Thanks for the responses. This machine will not be doing elaborate
>>  > things. I'll do typical stuff - surf, check e-mail. I'll also be
>>  > doing some web page maintenance and development - may get into some
>>  > android apps later.
>>  >
>>  > Got a good buy on an Acer Aspire One D257 (with dual core Atom) - 1gb
>>  > of ram which I'll probably up to 2gb. The mobo has one slot good for
>>  > 2gb. Also has a 320gb hard drive.
>> 
>> Unless you really need that much space, consider replacing the hard
>> drive by an SSD. Much faster, lighter, quieter, more robust,
>> longer-lasting battery charge. You can use the hard drive as an external
>> USB drive for large files and backups.
>> 
>> Bob T.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I recently upgraded my wife's eeepc from an 
> older 4gb SSD to a new 32gb SSD and increased the RAM from 1gb to 2 - 
> made quite a difference in performance with the new drive - specs say 
> it's about 3-5x faster doing i/o and hdparm confirms that.

     If you also changed the memory then how can you tell the SSD is
responsible for any of that improvement?

     After my first big memory upgrade back in the day my SO suspected
that I had gone and gotten a CPU upgrade. Actually having enough RAM to
accomodate the OS was like night and day.

-- 

    I want the option of leaving Wally World some time.
                                                                      |||
    That's what distinguishes a real Apple.                          / | \
    You can leave Wally World if you want.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1082

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:53:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2012-02-28, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:52:44 +0000, Bob Tennent wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 Feb 2012 15:56:42 GMT, ray wrote:
>>>  > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:07:40 +0000, ray wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  >> Would there be any particular advantage to running a 64 bit
>>>  >> version of, say, Debian on a netbook which is limited to 2gb RAM
>>>  >> but does have a 64 bit Atom processor?
>>>  >
>>>  > Thanks for the responses. This machine will not be doing elaborate
>>>  > things. I'll do typical stuff - surf, check e-mail. I'll also be
>>>  > doing some web page maintenance and development - may get into some
>>>  > android apps later.
>>>  >
>>>  > Got a good buy on an Acer Aspire One D257 (with dual core Atom) -
>>>  > 1gb of ram which I'll probably up to 2gb. The mobo has one slot
>>>  > good for 2gb. Also has a 320gb hard drive.
>>> 
>>> Unless you really need that much space, consider replacing the hard
>>> drive by an SSD. Much faster, lighter, quieter, more robust,
>>> longer-lasting battery charge. You can use the hard drive as an
>>> external USB drive for large files and backups.
>>> 
>>> Bob T.
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestion. I recently upgraded my wife's eeepc from an
>> older 4gb SSD to a new 32gb SSD and increased the RAM from 1gb to 2 -
>> made quite a difference in performance with the new drive - specs say
>> it's about 3-5x faster doing i/o and hdparm confirms that.
> 
>      If you also changed the memory then how can you tell the SSD is
> responsible for any of that improvement?
> 
>      After my first big memory upgrade back in the day my SO suspected
> that I had gone and gotten a CPU upgrade. Actually having enough RAM to
> accomodate the OS was like night and day.

Never saw it page. And, as I said, hdparm indicated much improved disk 
performance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1084

On 2012-02-28, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:53:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-28, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:52:44 +0000, Bob Tennent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28 Feb 2012 15:56:42 GMT, ray wrote:
>>>>  > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:07:40 +0000, ray wrote:
>>>>  >
>>>>  >> Would there be any particular advantage to running a 64 bit
>>>>  >> version of, say, Debian on a netbook which is limited to 2gb RAM
>>>>  >> but does have a 64 bit Atom processor?
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Thanks for the responses. This machine will not be doing elaborate
>>>>  > things. I'll do typical stuff - surf, check e-mail. I'll also be
>>>>  > doing some web page maintenance and development - may get into some
>>>>  > android apps later.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Got a good buy on an Acer Aspire One D257 (with dual core Atom) -
>>>>  > 1gb of ram which I'll probably up to 2gb. The mobo has one slot
>>>>  > good for 2gb. Also has a 320gb hard drive.
>>>> 
>>>> Unless you really need that much space, consider replacing the hard
>>>> drive by an SSD. Much faster, lighter, quieter, more robust,
>>>> longer-lasting battery charge. You can use the hard drive as an
>>>> external USB drive for large files and backups.
>>>> 
>>>> Bob T.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestion. I recently upgraded my wife's eeepc from an
>>> older 4gb SSD to a new 32gb SSD and increased the RAM from 1gb to 2 -
>>> made quite a difference in performance with the new drive - specs say
>>> it's about 3-5x faster doing i/o and hdparm confirms that.
>> 
>>      If you also changed the memory then how can you tell the SSD is
>> responsible for any of that improvement?
>> 
>>      After my first big memory upgrade back in the day my SO suspected
>> that I had gone and gotten a CPU upgrade. Actually having enough RAM to
>> accomodate the OS was like night and day.
>
> Never saw it page. And, as I said, hdparm indicated much improved disk 
> performance.

    That just means the disk is faster, which is probably somethat obvious
given that it is an SSD. Whether or not making that particular bit of the 
system faster was of any real benefit is another matter. I would hope that
an SSD on a Linux desktop would not have that much impact.

-- 

    I want the option of leaving Wally World some time.
                                                                      |||
    That's what distinguishes a real Apple.                          / | \
    You can leave Wally World if you want.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1085

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:12:13 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2012-02-28, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:53:38 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-02-28, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:52:44 +0000, Bob Tennent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Feb 2012 15:56:42 GMT, ray wrote:
>>>>>  > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:07:40 +0000, ray wrote:
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  >> Would there be any particular advantage to running a 64 bit
>>>>>  >> version of, say, Debian on a netbook which is limited to 2gb RAM
>>>>>  >> but does have a 64 bit Atom processor?
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > Thanks for the responses. This machine will not be doing
>>>>>  > elaborate things. I'll do typical stuff - surf, check e-mail.
>>>>>  > I'll also be doing some web page maintenance and development -
>>>>>  > may get into some android apps later.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > Got a good buy on an Acer Aspire One D257 (with dual core Atom) -
>>>>>  > 1gb of ram which I'll probably up to 2gb. The mobo has one slot
>>>>>  > good for 2gb. Also has a 320gb hard drive.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unless you really need that much space, consider replacing the hard
>>>>> drive by an SSD. Much faster, lighter, quieter, more robust,
>>>>> longer-lasting battery charge. You can use the hard drive as an
>>>>> external USB drive for large files and backups.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bob T.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the suggestion. I recently upgraded my wife's eeepc from
>>>> an older 4gb SSD to a new 32gb SSD and increased the RAM from 1gb to
>>>> 2 - made quite a difference in performance with the new drive - specs
>>>> say it's about 3-5x faster doing i/o and hdparm confirms that.
>>> 
>>>      If you also changed the memory then how can you tell the SSD is
>>> responsible for any of that improvement?
>>> 
>>>      After my first big memory upgrade back in the day my SO suspected
>>> that I had gone and gotten a CPU upgrade. Actually having enough RAM
>>> to accomodate the OS was like night and day.
>>
>> Never saw it page. And, as I said, hdparm indicated much improved disk
>> performance.
> 
>     That just means the disk is faster, which is probably somethat
>     obvious
> given that it is an SSD. Whether or not making that particular bit of
> the system faster was of any real benefit is another matter. I would
> hope that an SSD on a Linux desktop would not have that much impact.

I replaced an older, slower 4GB SSD with a new, faster 32GB SSD. The 
specs for I/O are about 5x faster for the new drive than the old one. If 
you hadn't noticed, Linux is disk intensive.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web