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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#1061 — Atom netbook - 32 or 64 bit OS??

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1062

On Monday 27 February 2012 19:07, ray conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> 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?

Probably not.  With only 2 GB of RAM, and assuming that the RAM cannot 
be upgraded for some hardware-related reason, you're probably better off 
running a 32-bit operating system on it.

On such a "small" machine, your 64-bit performance gain is most likely 
going to be negated by the necessity of the operating system to page out 
memory to the disk - or, if applicable, the solid state drive.  The load 
on the RAM is somewhat lighter with a 32-bit operating system.

Of course, a lot depends on what you'll be running, but just for 
comparison's sake, I am running a 64-bit Mageia here now with KDE 4.6.5 
and only a few opened applications, and this is my current memory 
usage...

           total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        3963       2414       1549          0          2       1300
-/+ buffers/cache:     1110       2852
Swap:       7998          0       7998

Of course, a lot of that is cache, but that's exactly what makes your 
system snappier.  There's far less room for cache on a 2 GB RAM system.

By comparison, my 32-bit PCLinuxOS (with KDE 3.5.10) generally runs with 
just over 1 GB of RAM in use, cache included.  There is of course a 
difference in code complexity between KDE 3.5.10 and KDE 4.6.5, but 
still, I mainly attribute the memory consumption surplus here in Mageia 
to its 64-bit nature.

This reminds me, there is a new x86 operating system "architecture" for 
the Linux kernel in the making - and I will be checking up on its status 
as soon as I've finished typing this article - called x32.  x32 is a 64-
bit implementation for x86-64 processors, but it uses 32-bit pointers so 
as to be more economic on the RAM.  This is especially useful in 
embedded devices, and potentially also for the type of machine you are 
now inquiring about.

But like I said, I'm going to have to check up on its status, because I 
don't know how far the project has advanced yet so far, and/or whether 
it's already being implemented at a distribution level.  (Frankly, I'd 
be surprised, as I haven't heard anything in that regard yet.)

Just my two Eurocents. ;-)

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

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

#1063

On Monday 27 February 2012 20:05, Aragorn conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> This reminds me, there is a new x86 operating system "architecture"
> for the Linux kernel in the making - and I will be checking up on its
> status as soon as I've finished typing this article - called x32.  x32
> is a 64- bit implementation for x86-64 processors, but it uses 32-bit
> pointers so as to be more economic on the RAM.  This is especially
> useful in embedded devices, and potentially also for the type of
> machine you are now inquiring about.
> 
> But like I said, I'm going to have to check up on its status, because
> I don't know how far the project has advanced yet so far, and/or
> whether it's already being implemented at a distribution level. 

As a follow-up and for those interested, the latest update on the status 
of the project (and other useful information) can be found at the 
address below...

     http://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/

;-)

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

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

#1064

Hello,

Aragorn a écrit :
> On Monday 27 February 2012 19:07, ray conveyed the following to 
> comp.os.linux.hardware...
> 
>> 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?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons> lists some advantages.

> Of course, a lot depends on what you'll be running, but just for 
> comparison's sake, I am running a 64-bit Mageia here now with KDE 4.6.5 
> and only a few opened applications, and this is my current memory 
> usage...
> 
>            total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
> Mem:        3963       2414       1549          0          2       1300
> -/+ buffers/cache:     1110       2852
> Swap:       7998          0       7998
> 
> Of course, a lot of that is cache, but that's exactly what makes your 
> system snappier.  There's far less room for cache on a 2 GB RAM system.
> 
> By comparison, my 32-bit PCLinuxOS (with KDE 3.5.10) generally runs with 
> just over 1 GB of RAM in use, cache included.  There is of course a 
> difference in code complexity between KDE 3.5.10 and KDE 4.6.5, but 
> still, I mainly attribute the memory consumption surplus here in Mageia 
> to its 64-bit nature.

Any /serious/ facts backing this opinion ?
Comparing different OSes and software and claiming that the difference
is due to 32 vs 64-bit does not sound serious to me.

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

#1067

On Monday 27 February 2012 22:04, Pascal Hambourg conveyed the following 
to comp.os.linux.hardware...

> Aragorn a écrit :
>
>> On Monday 27 February 2012 19:07, ray conveyed the following to
>> comp.os.linux.hardware...
>> 
>>> 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?
> 
> [...]
>> Of course, a lot of that is cache, but that's exactly what makes your
>> system snappier.  There's far less room for cache on a 2 GB RAM
>> system.
>> 
>> By comparison, my 32-bit PCLinuxOS (with KDE 3.5.10) generally runs
>> with just over 1 GB of RAM in use, cache included.  There is of
>> course a difference in code complexity between KDE 3.5.10 and KDE
>> 4.6.5, but still, I mainly attribute the memory consumption surplus
>> here in Mageia to its 64-bit nature.
> 
> Any /serious/ facts backing this opinion ?

If by "serious facts" you mean hard statistical evidence, then I do not 
have that.  I do however have somewhat of an idea from what others who 
have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same distribution installed 
have reported across the various newsgroups I'm subscribed to.

> Comparing different OSes and software and claiming that the difference
> is due to 32 vs 64-bit does not sound serious to me.

I wouldn't stretch that "different OSes and software" concept too much, 
though.  PCLinuxOS is a Mandriva derivative, and so is Mageia.  The only 
real difference at the operating system level is the package manager.  
Both systems have 2.6 kernels - 2.6.26 for PCLinuxOS, 2.6.38 for Mageia.

That said, I did say that the PCLinuxOS distribution uses KDE 3.5 and 
this Mageia here uses KDE 4.6.  Granted, there is a generational 
difference at play there, but it's still KDE, and the KDE developers did 
not exactly throw away _all_ of the code base of KDE 3 when they 
developed KDE 4.

Furthermore, the applications used at the time of the check were the 
same for both installations.  Essentially only one logged-in user, 
running KMail (e-mail client), KNode (news reader) and KVIrc (IRC 
client).  Cache may vary in size due to frequent opening and closing of 
Firefox sessions and other applications.

It's not like I'm comparing GNU/Linux with Solaris or FreeBSD, or even 
with BeOS, IBM OS/2 or Microsoft Windows.  It's the same operating 
system, just a little bit more modern in the event of the 64-bit system.  
The hardware is the same as well, as both distributions are installed 
side by side on this machine here.

When cache is taken out of the equation, then I would say that the 
difference in RAM consumption between the 32-bit PCLinuxOS and the 64-
bit Mageia sits somewhere in the 400 to 500 MB range.  This difference 
could be smaller if both were indeed only different "bitness" versions 
of the exact same distribution, but I estimate that the difference would 
still be in the magnitude of 200 to 300 MB, with the 64-bit system 
consuming the most of the two.

It is a fact: 64-bit systems use 64-bit integers and 64-bit pointers.  
Inevitably this leads to greater memory consumption on the part of the 
64-bit system.  It won't be anywhere near the Microsoft-touted claim 
that a 64-bit system consumes or needs twice as much RAM as a 32-bit 
system, but there /is/ a difference.  That is exactly why the x32 
platform was conceived.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

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

#1087

Aragorn a écrit :
> On Monday 27 February 2012 22:04, Pascal Hambourg conveyed the following 
> to comp.os.linux.hardware...
> 
>> Aragorn a écrit :
>>>
>>> By comparison, my 32-bit PCLinuxOS (with KDE 3.5.10) generally runs
>>> with just over 1 GB of RAM in use, cache included.  There is of
>>> course a difference in code complexity between KDE 3.5.10 and KDE
>>> 4.6.5, but still, I mainly attribute the memory consumption surplus
>>> here in Mageia to its 64-bit nature.
>>
>> Any /serious/ facts backing this opinion ?
> 
> If by "serious facts" you mean hard statistical evidence, then I do not 
> have that.

I am not so demanding.

> I do however have somewhat of an idea from what others who 
> have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the same distribution installed 
> have reported across the various newsgroups I'm subscribed to.

That's fine for me.
I happen to have a double-side DVD of an openSUSE version, one side is
32-bit and the other is 64-bit. I'm planning to install both on the same
machine and compare by myself.

>> Comparing different OSes and software and claiming that the difference
>> is due to 32 vs 64-bit does not sound serious to me.
> 
> I wouldn't stretch that "different OSes and software" concept too much, 
> though.  PCLinuxOS is a Mandriva derivative, and so is Mageia.  The only 
> real difference at the operating system level is the package manager.  
> Both systems have 2.6 kernels - 2.6.26 for PCLinuxOS, 2.6.38 for Mageia.
> 
> That said, I did say that the PCLinuxOS distribution uses KDE 3.5 and 
> this Mageia here uses KDE 4.6.  Granted, there is a generational 
> difference at play there, but it's still KDE, and the KDE developers did 
> not exactly throw away _all_ of the code base of KDE 3 when they 
> developed KDE 4.

Obviously, your Mageia version is much more recent than your PCLinuxOS
version. Different versions of the kernel and KDE, different versions of
other packages, maybe different components too. I have used several
versions of 32-bit Mandriva and Debian and could see an increase in the
requirements and memory footprint of each new version. For example
Mandriva 2008 required 256 MB, Mandriva 2009 required 512 MB. After an
upgrade, I observed that BIND9 new version used twice as much memory as
the previous version. No need to switch from 32-bit to 64-bit to see an
increased memory footprint : just upgrade to a newer version.

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

#1069

Pascal Hambourg wrote:

> 
> Any /serious/ facts backing this opinion ?
> Comparing different OSes and software and claiming that the difference
> is due to 32 vs 64-bit does not sound serious to me.

If running in under 4GB, you will suffer a very slight performance penalty 
running a 64-bit system because you'll be doing more memory accesses to load 
in the wider pointers when you don't really need them.
-- 
Dave
Too many gadgets, too little time.

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

#1098

Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>Probably not.  With only 2 GB of RAM, and assuming that the RAM cannot 
>be upgraded for some hardware-related reason, you're probably better off 
>running a 32-bit operating system on it.
>
>On such a "small" machine, your 64-bit performance gain is most likely 
>going to be negated by the necessity of the operating system to page out 
>memory to the disk - or, if applicable, the solid state drive.  The load 
>on the RAM is somewhat lighter with a 32-bit operating system.

The difference between i686 and x64_64 is not only pointer width.
x86_64 has twice as much registers, which makes many operations
considerably faster.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

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

#1102

On Friday 02 March 2012 22:42, Marc Haber conveyed the following to 
comp.os.linux.hardware...

> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Probably not.  With only 2 GB of RAM, and assuming that the RAM
>> cannot be upgraded for some hardware-related reason, you're probably
>> better off running a 32-bit operating system on it.
>>
>> On such a "small" machine, your 64-bit performance gain is most
>> likely going to be negated by the necessity of the operating system
>> to page out memory to the disk - or, if applicable, the solid state
>> drive.  The load on the RAM is somewhat lighter with a 32-bit
>> operating system.
> 
> The difference between i686 and x64_64 is not only pointer width.
> x86_64 has twice as much registers, which makes many operations
> considerably faster.

Of course, and it also adds extra instructions to the x86 instruction 
set - as well as no longer offering V86 mode while the processor 
operates in 64-bit long mode - but all of those advancements are not the 
issue here.  

Having considerably faster number crunching isn't going to do much good 
if you're constantly hitting swap, and the slowest factor in any modern 
day computer is still the hard disk.  And in the event that the machine 
has an SSD instead of a rotating platter disk, having swap on an SSD is 
definitely not a good idea either.

The RAM is the bottleneck for the OP's system.  If he were able to up 
that to 4 GB, /then/ I would recommend a 64-bit operating system.  But 2 
GB is just on the cusp, especially with any single one of the modern 
desktop environments like KDE 4, Gnome 3 or even XFCE.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

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

#1103

Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> The RAM is the bottleneck for the OP's system.  If he were able to up 
> that to 4 GB, /then/ I would recommend a 64-bit operating system.  But 2 
> GB is just on the cusp, especially with any single one of the modern 
> desktop environments like KDE 4, Gnome 3 or even XFCE.

I've been running multiple systems (Linux and otherwise) with full
desktop environments on 2GB systems, with 64-bit userspace and kernels
(mostly), for ages, including RAM-intensive activities such as photo
processing, parallelised compilation, picking through gigantic logfiles,
etc.

IME it's plenty.

There are practical advantages for me, too; I don't really want to
rewrite my inner loops in assembler twice, and using 64-bit assembler is
both easier and produces the greatest performance boost for the effort
expended.

It _is_ true that pointer size can make an appreciable difference in
some cases, though.  For example gitk on the kernel tree has about 25%
greater PSS when 64-bit than 32-bit.  As it happens the latter is about
2GB so on a 2GB machine it's still going to swap; just not as much.
Putting swap on SSD might restore reasonable performance, provided of
course that one ignores the widespread but unquantified FUD about doing
so.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

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

#1065

On 02/27/2012 07:07 PM, 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?

i have a 64 bit atom netbook running 32 bit linux because i don't do 
anything 'heavy' enough to justify pushing around twice as wide 'words' 
_constantly_

but the answer to _your_ question actually depends on how you answer: 
after a careful review of how you intend to use the machine, do you need 
to do any 64 bit computing?

-- 
DenverD

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

#1066

On 27/02/2012 22:54, DenverD wrote:
> On 02/27/2012 07:07 PM, 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?

You have benchmarks available at phoronix if memory serves that compares 
atom processor on running 32 bits linux and 64 bits Linux.

I have been using debian on various HTPC system (atom + Ion, celeron + 
ion, AMD APU) with 2GB or memory and using latest kernel 3.2.7, debian 
unstable + experimental and have seen performance improvement for IO and 
video on 64 bits.

--eric

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

#1068

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.

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

#1070

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.

--eric

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

#1074

On 2012-02-28, Eric VALETTE <ericNo.Spamvalette@free.fr> 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.

    64bit on PCs still suffers from the problem of 3rd party support. You 
may find that a particular driver or app or plugin is not supported. Beyond
that, the differences are likely to be negligible.

-- 

    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]

#1075

On 28/02/2012 18:30, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>      64bit on PCs still suffers from the problem of 3rd party support. You
> may find that a particular driver or app or plugin is not supported. Beyond
> that, the differences are likely to be negligible.


Nope. I may be miss gogle maps. Thta's about all. the differences are 
likely not negligible. See real benchmarks figures...


-- eric

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

#1080

On 2012-02-28, Eric Valette <EricNo.SPAMvalette@free.fr> wrote:
> On 28/02/2012 18:30, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>>      64bit on PCs still suffers from the problem of 3rd party support. You
>> may find that a particular driver or app or plugin is not supported. Beyond
>> that, the differences are likely to be negligible.
>
>
> Nope. I may be miss gogle maps. Thta's about all. the differences are 
> likely not negligible. See real benchmarks figures...

    Been there. Done that. Don't need some "authority on the web" to 
try and contradict my own personal (and professional) firsthand experience.

-- 

    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]

#1089

On 28/02/2012 22:50, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>      Been there. Done that. Don't need some "authority on the web" to
> try and contradict my own personal (and professional) firsthand experience.
>


Been there. Still here. Do not need advice from someone that does not 
provide any figure either when other real figures exist.

--eric

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

#1076

On 28/02/2012 18:30, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>      64bit on PCs still suffers from the problem of 3rd party support. You
> may find that a particular driver or app or plugin is not supported.


Well well not much. I may miss google maps...

> Beyond
> that, the differences are likely to be negligible.

Benchmarks show the contrary...

-- eric

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

#1079

On 2012-02-28, Eric Valette <EricNo.SPAMvalette@free.fr> wrote:
> On 28/02/2012 18:30, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>>      64bit on PCs still suffers from the problem of 3rd party support. You
>> may find that a particular driver or app or plugin is not supported.
>
>
> Well well not much. I may miss google maps...
>
>> Beyond
>> that, the differences are likely to be negligible.
>
> Benchmarks show the contrary...

    Your apparent desperation to over-hype 64-bit is most peculiar.


-- 

    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]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web