[opensuse] should i go with 64bit??
hi... i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Linux wrote:
hi... i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz?
64 bit vi really rocks!!! ;-) -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
* Linux <hans.linux@igi-alliance.com> [Jan 05. 2009 03:43]:
hi... i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz?
Main advantage of 64-bit is the possibility of adressing more than 2 GB of memory, so that won't help you. But you'll still get a small performance boost, so I would go with 64-bit any day of the week on your 64-bit hardware. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?" -- A. P. J. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Linux wrote:
hi... i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz?
I wouldn't bother. I've recently switched my external servers from 64bit to 32bit - it saved me quite a bit of memory. My workstation is 64bit for now, but I'll most probably also re-install that with 32bit. /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz?
I wouldn't bother. I've recently switched my external servers from 64bit to 32bit - it saved me quite a bit of memory. My workstation is 64bit for now, but I'll most probably also re-install that with 32bit.
I have yet to see a compelling reason to move to 64-bit (ie I still use 32-bit). The primary reasons I stick with 32-bit are: - multimedia (w32codecs for example) - browser plugins - gaming (Wine/Cedega particularly) In all 3 cases, 32 bit libs are required. It is possible to install 32 bit libs into a 64-bit install, but it quickly becomes VERY messy because of all the dependencies. I tried it for a while, but gave up on it as a bad idea until 64-bit versions of the bits I want/need are readily available. On a server... it makes sense... on a home/desktop computer it's not so useful. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz?
Your processor is designed to work best in 64 bit mode, and you will only get the full benefit of the extra registers and 64 bit instructions with a 64 bit operating system. The plus is significantly better speed in heavily processor bound apps (graphics, scientific, etc.). I've been running 64 bits on my main workstations for over a year. No problems at all related to installing 32 bit libraries to support the rare 32 bit code I need to run (games like Doom 3, Quake 4) various other things via wine, and multimedia codecs. YaST handles it automatically. The NVIDIA installer even provides 32 bit compatibility GL libraries. Early on, there were problems with browser plugins but I haven't noticed any recently. I guess it depends on what you browse to. But YMMV -- some people think going from 32 bits to 64 ruined their computing experience. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, January 5, 2009 12:41, MikeDL wrote:
i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz?
Your processor is designed to work best in 64 bit mode, and you will only get the full benefit of the extra registers and 64 bit instructions with a 64 bit operating system. The plus is significantly better speed in heavily processor bound apps (graphics, scientific, etc.).
CPU bound apps benefit a lot from 64 bit. I/O bound apps have marginal to none benefit from 64bit. An I/O bound app is an app that spends most of its time waiting for input from peripherals. Most desktop software works with user generated input from keyboard/mouse. In simple English: if you have to type or click a lot in your application, you won't benefit a lot from 64 bit. This is oversimplified.
I've been running 64 bits on my main workstations for over a year.
For over a year? Then you may consider yourself a 64 bit newbie. It is only in the last year or so that 64 bit has become a bit usable for the desktop. Some of us have been tinkering with 64 bit for 3 or 4 years, and have built user experiences. Some good, some bad. Again, CPU bound apps are great on 64 bit. I/O bound? Not worth typing 'sudo zypper in foobar32'.
No problems at all related to installing 32 bit libraries to support the rare 32 bit code I need to run (games like Doom 3, Quake 4) various other things via wine, and multimedia codecs. YaST handles it automatically. The NVIDIA installer even provides 32 bit compatibility GL libraries.
Early on, there were problems with browser plugins but I haven't noticed any recently. I guess it depends on what you browse to.
No. It depends on hard work that programmers have done over the years to improve browser plugins for 64 bit. They solved all those problems before you started using 64 bit, so you don't know about all the Bad Things that can happen. That's not your fault. Those of us that Have Been There (and Bought The T-Shirt) are more careful. If it (our current 32 bit installations) works, don't break (upgrade to 64 bit) it. As always, YMMV. -- Amedee -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 05 January 2009 11:04:34 Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
I've been running 64 bits on my main workstations for over a year.
For over a year? Then you may consider yourself a 64 bit newbie.
<rolls eyes> I wrote "my main workstations". Four years ago using SuSE 9.1 I rewrite a ton of my code to remove 32 bitisms and take advantage of the additional registers. My response to the OP is that for the last year, I have been using a x86_64 OS as my main day-to-day general purpose platform with no problems, and that he should not reject the choice based on FUD.
They solved all those problems before you started using 64 bit, so you don't know about all the Bad Things that can happen.
The only "Bad Things" that can happen is being frightened by people imagining problems based on disinformation or an experience from 2004.
Those of us that Have Been There (and Bought The T-Shirt) are more careful. If it (our current 32 bit installations) works, don't break (upgrade to 64 bit) it.
Using that logic, it's a wonder you're not still using a 80286. There are many reasons to upgrade to x86_64, and with few exceptions only fear of change as a reason not to. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:46 PM, MikeDL <mikedl@comcast.net> wrote:
On Monday 05 January 2009 11:04:34 Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
I've been running 64 bits on my main workstations for over a year.
For over a year? Then you may consider yourself a 64 bit newbie.
<rolls eyes>
I wrote "my main workstations". Four years ago using SuSE 9.1 I rewrite a ton of my code to remove 32 bitisms and take advantage of the additional registers. My response to the OP is that for the last year, I have been using a x86_64 OS as my main day-to-day general purpose platform with no problems, and that he should not reject the choice based on FUD.
They solved all those problems before you started using 64 bit, so you don't know about all the Bad Things that can happen.
The only "Bad Things" that can happen is being frightened by people imagining problems based on disinformation or an experience from 2004.
Those of us that Have Been There (and Bought The T-Shirt) are more careful. If it (our current 32 bit installations) works, don't break (upgrade to 64 bit) it.
Using that logic, it's a wonder you're not still using a 80286. There are many reasons to upgrade to x86_64, and with few exceptions only fear of change as a reason not to.
Even Vista users went to majority 64-bit on new installs last summer!!!! Only about 1/3 of new suse installs per the first day OS 11.1 download stats. (http://news.opensuse.org/2008/12/24/numbers-again/) Only 25% of linux in general per smolts (http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html) Greg -- Greg Freemyer Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer First 99 Days Litigation White Paper - http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/99%20Days%20whitepaper.pdf The Norcross Group The Intersection of Evidence & Technology http://www.norcrossgroup.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 7:46 PM, MikeDL <mikedl@comcast.net> wrote:
On Monday 05 January 2009 11:04:34 Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
I've been running 64 bits on my main workstations for over a year.
For over a year? Then you may consider yourself a 64 bit newbie.
<rolls eyes>
I wrote "my main workstations". Four years ago using SuSE 9.1 I rewrite a ton of my code to remove 32 bitisms and take advantage of the additional registers. My response to the OP is that for the last year, I have been using a x86_64 OS as my main day-to-day general purpose platform with no problems, and that he should not reject the choice based on FUD.
They solved all those problems before you started using 64 bit, so you don't know about all the Bad Things that can happen.
The only "Bad Things" that can happen is being frightened by people imagining problems based on disinformation or an experience from 2004.
Those of us that Have Been There (and Bought The T-Shirt) are more careful. If it (our current 32 bit installations) works, don't break (upgrade to 64 bit) it.
Using that logic, it's a wonder you're not still using a 80286. There are many reasons to upgrade to x86_64, and with few exceptions only fear of change as a reason not to.
Even Vista users went to majority 64-bit on new installs last summer!!!!
Only about 1/3 of new suse installs per the first day OS 11.1 download stats. (http://news.opensuse.org/2008/12/24/numbers-again/)
Only 25% of linux in general per smolts (http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html)
Greg
great discussion! I think the only way to find it out is to try 64 bit myself. I use Linux only for work, not gaming. So I guess I'll try 64 bit for sometime. As long as I can get Compiz (can't live without it, especially to amaze Vista users hehehe), Cairo-Dock, Geany, Freemind and Mplayer running on my laptop, I'll go with 64 bit. :D -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Greg Freemyer wrote:
Even Vista users went to majority 64-bit on new installs last summer!!!!
Only about 1/3 of new suse installs per the first day OS 11.1 download stats. (http://news.opensuse.org/2008/12/24/numbers-again/)
Only 25% of linux in general per smolts (http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html)
I've been running 64 bit SUSE for about 2.5 years. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
MikeDL wrote:
I wrote "my main workstations". Four years ago using SuSE 9.1 I rewrite a ton of my code to remove 32 bitisms and take advantage of the additional registers. My response to the OP is that for the last year, I have been using a x86_64 OS as my main day-to-day general purpose platform with no problems, and that he should not reject the choice based on FUD.
The only "Bad Things" that can happen is being frightened by people imagining problems based on disinformation or an experience from 2004.
Using that logic, it's a wonder you're not still using a 80286. There are many reasons to upgrade to x86_64, and with few exceptions only fear of change as a reason not to.
I have to agree, most of the arguments with 32-bit and 64-bit are very outdated. Like you I have been running 64-bit for quite some years (Since 9.3) without issue but people still seem to hold on to outdated idea's. Even the last outstanding missing pieces of the puzzle have been fixed with 64-bit flash and java plugins being available. Dean Hilkewich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 19:22 -0600, Dean Hilkewich wrote:
MikeDL wrote:
I wrote "my main workstations". Four years ago using SuSE 9.1 I rewrite a ton of my code to remove 32 bitisms and take advantage of the additional registers. My response to the OP is that for the last year, I have been using a x86_64 OS as my main day-to-day general purpose platform with no problems, and that he should not reject the choice based on FUD.
The only "Bad Things" that can happen is being frightened by people imagining problems based on disinformation or an experience from 2004.
Using that logic, it's a wonder you're not still using a 80286. There are many reasons to upgrade to x86_64, and with few exceptions only fear of change as a reason not to.
I have to agree, most of the arguments with 32-bit and 64-bit are very outdated. Like you I have been running 64-bit for quite some years (Since 9.3) without issue but people still seem to hold on to outdated idea's. Even the last outstanding missing pieces of the puzzle have been fixed with 64-bit flash and java plugins being available.
Dean Hilkewich
I have been running suse 64 since 9.0. I remember I have to order the box on line and it contained the 64 bit version. It was not easy to find. The new system at that time had only SATA drives so it did not install. A month later came an update and suse 64 installed OK. I have not have any problem to run it with the exception of a couple of plugins and there were way to go around it. SuSE 9.0 64b was my initiation to linux coming from OS/2. I have sometimes problems that require some work to solve it but they were not related to 64b OS but just new version with changes. -=terry=- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
I have to agree, most of the arguments with 32-bit and 64-bit are very outdated. Like you I have been running 64-bit for quite some years (Since 9.3) without issue but people still seem to hold on to outdated idea's. Even the last outstanding missing pieces of the puzzle have been fixed with 64-bit flash and java plugins being available.
For me it was a case of trying it a while back, and ending up fighting a nightmare of mixing 32 bit and 64 bit stuff to get the functionality I needed/wanted - mainly caused by Flash and Java, but also with the multimedia codecs. I wanted those, so that forced me to run a 32bit FireFox, which lead to a seemingly never ending mess of mixed architectures As people have pointed out, the majority of those issues are fixed with things like Flash and Java being available in 64 bit. We are oddly still stuck with 32 bit multimedia codecs. A while ago... when openSUSE 10.something was not working on my hardware I tried out Ubuntu... one thing that I noticed at the time was that the multimedia codecs were available as a 64 bit package (I was testing out 64 bit), and it appeared that I did not need 32 bit libs etc.. just installed the 64 bit codecs and the 64 bit MPlayer and I was off and running... I could be misremembering though... is my memory serving me well here? Is there a 64-bit codec pack on the other side of the fence? If so, why don't we have it too? As it stands, this discussion has piqued my interest in trying out 64 bit again. I think it's time to go DL the 64bit DVD iso. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Clayton wrote:
We are oddly still stuck with 32 bit multimedia codecs. A while ago... when openSUSE 10.something was not working on my hardware I tried out Ubuntu... one thing that I noticed at the time was that the multimedia codecs were available as a 64 bit package (I was testing out 64 bit), and it appeared that I did not need 32 bit libs etc.. just installed the 64 bit codecs and the 64 bit MPlayer and I was off and running... I could be misremembering though... is my memory serving me well here? Is there a 64-bit codec pack on the other side of the fence? If so, why don't we have it too?
As it stands, this discussion has piqued my interest in trying out 64 bit again. I think it's time to go DL the 64bit DVD iso.
C.
w32 codecs are no longer needed (they haven't been for a long time). The ffmpeg / libavcodec covers all major codecs that are in use (including real media, quicktime, wmv). You would have to search pretty hard to find something it does not support. There is no reason to install w32 codecs at all now days. Dean Hilkewich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
MikeDL wrote:
Those of us that Have Been There (and Bought The T-Shirt) are more careful. If it (our current 32 bit installations) works, don't break (upgrade to 64 bit) it.
Using that logic, it's a wonder you're not still using a 80286. There are many reasons to upgrade to x86_64 [snip]
Hardware-wise yes, software-wise not necessarily. -- /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:23:46 +0100, Clayton wrote:
The primary reasons I stick with 32-bit are: - multimedia (w32codecs for example)
Seems to work fine here. I use mplayer with win32codecs all the time on my 64-bit 11.0 installation.
- browser plugins
Was a problem from a Java standpoint until Sun released the beta of the 64-bit plugin. nspluginwrapper solved the problem for Flash for those who absolutely had to have it, but now there's a 64-bit flash plugin as well.
- gaming (Wine/Cedega particularly)
Can't comment on that as I don't use them. There are 64-bit WINE packages and I assume they work OK, but I do my Windows stuff in VMware which runs on both 32- and 64-bit systems just fine. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen escribió:
I wouldn't bother. I've recently switched my external servers from 64bit to 32bit - it saved me quite a bit of memory. My workstation is 64bit for now, but I'll most probably also re-install that with 32bit.
And you blamed the 64 bit architecture for bugs in programs ? -- "We have art in order not to die of the truth" - Friedrich Nietzsche Cristian Rodríguez R. Platform/OpenSUSE - Core Services SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Research & Development http://www.opensuse.org/
On Mon, January 5, 2009 18:01, Cristian RodrÃguez wrote:
Per Jessen escribió:
I wouldn't bother. I've recently switched my external servers from 64bit to 32bit - it saved me quite a bit of memory. My workstation is 64bit for now, but I'll most probably also re-install that with 32bit.
And you blamed the 64 bit architecture for bugs in programs ?
I didn't see him blaming anyone. Some software may work perfectly on x32 while barfing on x64, especially software that wasn't designed with x64 in mind. Making software compatible with every conceivable architecture upgrade of the distant future would add massive layers of abstraction. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 2009 January 05 11:56:27 Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
Making software compatible with every conceivable architecture upgrade of the distant future would add massive layers of abstraction.
Not really. It would require a level a discipline and understanding that is not common among developers (or persons in general). Just to be clear: I am *not* claiming that *I* possess the required level of discipline OR understanding. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
On Mon, January 5, 2009 18:01, Cristian RodrÃguez wrote:
Per Jessen escribió:
I wouldn't bother. I've recently switched my external servers from 64bit to 32bit - it saved me quite a bit of memory. My workstation is 64bit for now, but I'll most probably also re-install that with 32bit. And you blamed the 64 bit architecture for bugs in programs ?
I didn't see him blaming anyone. Some software may work perfectly on x32 while barfing on x64, especially software that wasn't designed with x64 in mind. Making software compatible with every conceivable architecture upgrade of the distant future would add massive layers of abstraction.
Many years ago, while taking a C programming course, I ran into some "gotchas" with variable sizes, when moving between 32 & 16 bit systems. In class, we were using Borland's Turbo C++ for DOS and at home I had Borland C++ for OS/2. There was a difference in the size of some variable types, such as INT, so that a program that ran fine at home would fail in class, because I had exceeded the maximum integer size. However, I have no idea how 32 & 64 bit systems compare with this issue. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
* James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Jan 05. 2009 19:22]:
Some software may work perfectly on x32 while barfing on x64, especially software that wasn't designed with x64 in mind. Making software compatible with every conceivable architecture upgrade of the distant future would add massive layers of abstraction.
Many years ago, while taking a C programming course, I ran into some "gotchas" with variable sizes, when moving between 32 & 16 bit systems. In class, we were using Borland's Turbo C++ for DOS and at home I had Borland C++ for OS/2. There was a difference in the size of some variable types, such as INT, so that a program that ran fine at home would fail in class, because I had exceeded the maximum integer size. However, I have no idea how 32 & 64 bit systems compare with this issue.
It's still the exact same thing. People are not making architecture independent code, still. -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?" -- A. P. J. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
* James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Jan 05. 2009 19:22]:
Some software may work perfectly on x32 while barfing on x64, especially software that wasn't designed with x64 in mind. Making software compatible with every conceivable architecture upgrade of the distant future would add massive layers of abstraction. Many years ago, while taking a C programming course, I ran into some "gotchas" with variable sizes, when moving between 32 & 16 bit systems. In class, we were using Borland's Turbo C++ for DOS and at home I had Borland C++ for OS/2. There was a difference in the size of some variable types, such as INT, so that a program that ran fine at home would fail in class, because I had exceeded the maximum integer size. However, I have no idea how 32 & 64 bit systems compare with this issue.
It's still the exact same thing. People are not making architecture independent code, still.
Supposedly, MickySoft is getting with the program and doing so. I have NO data to prove it, only from what I heard from the "inside." Anyway, IMHO, it's ignorant not to be writing 64-bit independent code. Make the effort now and increase performance. From now forward, there won't be anymore new 32-bit processors from Intel. It's a 64-bit world and has been for awhile. Fred -- "Politicians and diapers need to be changed regularly -- and for the same reason." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, January 6, 2009 08:45, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
* James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Jan 05. 2009 19:22]:
Some software may work perfectly on x32 while barfing on x64, especially software that wasn't designed with x64 in mind. Making software compatible with every conceivable architecture upgrade of the distant future would add massive layers of abstraction. Many years ago, while taking a C programming course, I ran into some "gotchas" with variable sizes, when moving between 32 & 16 bit systems. In class, we were using Borland's Turbo C++ for DOS and at home I had Borland C++ for OS/2. There was a difference in the size of some variable types, such as INT, so that a program that ran fine at home would fail in class, because I had exceeded the maximum integer size. However, I have no idea how 32 & 64 bit systems compare with this issue.
It's still the exact same thing. People are not making architecture independent code, still.
Supposedly, MickySoft is getting with the program and doing so. I have NO data to prove it, only from what I heard from the "inside." Anyway, IMHO, it's ignorant not to be writing 64-bit independent code. Make the effort now and increase performance. From now forward, there won't be anymore new 32-bit processors from Intel. It's a 64-bit world and has been for awhile.
It's not a mortal sin to write architecture dependent code, but only if you know what you are doing. For example, if you are coding in the embedded world on a 5MHz 8088 CPU with 32KiB RAM (I kid you not), it is ignorant to be writing hardware indepentent code. You won't be coding in Java, you will be coding in Assembler or C. In most other situations, please code architecture independent. I only want to make an argument against the usage of absolute words like "ALWAYS" and "NEVER". The world isn't black&white, it's shades of RGB. -- Amedee -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 13:33 +0100, Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
On Tue, January 6, 2009 08:45, Fred A. Miller wrote:
Mads Martin Joergensen wrote:
* James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> [Jan 05. 2009 19:22]:
Some software may work perfectly on x32 while barfing on x64, especially software that wasn't designed with x64 in mind. Making software compatible with every conceivable architecture upgrade of the distant future would add massive layers of abstraction. Many years ago, while taking a C programming course, I ran into some "gotchas" with variable sizes, when moving between 32 & 16 bit systems. In class, we were using Borland's Turbo C++ for DOS and at home I had Borland C++ for OS/2. There was a difference in the size of some variable types, such as INT, so that a program that ran fine at home would fail in class, because I had exceeded the maximum integer size. However, I have no idea how 32 & 64 bit systems compare with this issue.
It's still the exact same thing. People are not making architecture independent code, still.
Supposedly, MickySoft is getting with the program and doing so. I have NO data to prove it, only from what I heard from the "inside." Anyway, IMHO, it's ignorant not to be writing 64-bit independent code. Make the effort now and increase performance. From now forward, there won't be anymore new 32-bit processors from Intel. It's a 64-bit world and has been for awhile.
It's not a mortal sin to write architecture dependent code, but only if you know what you are doing. For example, if you are coding in the embedded world on a 5MHz 8088 CPU with 32KiB RAM (I kid you not), it is ignorant to be writing hardware indepentent code. You won't be coding in Java, you will be coding in Assembler or C.
In most other situations, please code architecture independent. I only want to make an argument against the usage of absolute words like "ALWAYS" and "NEVER". The world isn't black&white, it's shades of RGB.
You can toss this into the pile as well. My 8 year old CNC machine runs on an equivalent 486 processor (the Motorola variant). I don't see machine tool manufacturers and their Controller design staff needing 64bit cpu's on the machines. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Mike McMullin wrote:
You can toss this into the pile as well. My 8 year old CNC machine runs on an equivalent 486 processor (the Motorola variant). I don't see machine tool manufacturers and their Controller design staff needing 64bit cpu's on the machines.
There's still a lot of 8 bit and even 4 bit code around in embedded devices. Someone building a custom chip can choose from a wide variety of CPU architectures, from a logic library and add in memory, I/O etc., to get the optimum combination of CPU power, chip real estate etc. in one package. So, in a modern device, there could be an Intel 4040 at the core, so long as it meets the overall design requirements. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, January 7, 2009 13:23, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
You can toss this into the pile as well. My 8 year old CNC machine runs on an equivalent 486 processor (the Motorola variant). I don't see machine tool manufacturers and their Controller design staff needing 64bit cpu's on the machines.
There's still a lot of 8 bit and even 4 bit code around in embedded devices. Someone building a custom chip can choose from a wide variety of CPU architectures, from a logic library and add in memory, I/O etc., to get the optimum combination of CPU power, chip real estate etc. in one package. So, in a modern device, there could be an Intel 4040 at the core, so long as it meets the overall design requirements.
Agreed. The Intel 4040 and similar historic CPUs are still in production. Not for consumers, but for manufacturers of embedded devices. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
On Wed, January 7, 2009 13:23, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
You can toss this into the pile as well. My 8 year old CNC machine runs on an equivalent 486 processor (the Motorola variant). I don't see machine tool manufacturers and their Controller design staff needing 64bit cpu's on the machines.
There's still a lot of 8 bit and even 4 bit code around in embedded devices. Someone building a custom chip can choose from a wide variety of CPU architectures, from a logic library and add in memory, I/O etc., to get the optimum combination of CPU power, chip real estate etc. in one package. So, in a modern device, there could be an Intel 4040 at the core, so long as it meets the overall design requirements.
Agreed. The Intel 4040 and similar historic CPUs are still in production. Not for consumers, but for manufacturers of embedded devices.
The actual Intel 4040? Or simply as part of a logic library, used to design custom chips? I suppose someone could build an actual 4040, from the library, but using current technology. Logic libraries are used by chip designers, in the same manner that software libraries are used by programmers. The chip designer chooses the CPU core, memory, I/O etc. and creates the desired function for the finished IC. -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
James Knott schreef:
Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
On Wed, January 7, 2009 13:23, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
You can toss this into the pile as well. My 8 year old CNC machine runs on an equivalent 486 processor (the Motorola variant). I don't see machine tool manufacturers and their Controller design staff needing 64bit cpu's on the machines.
There's still a lot of 8 bit and even 4 bit code around in embedded devices. Someone building a custom chip can choose from a wide variety of CPU architectures, from a logic library and add in memory, I/O etc., to get the optimum combination of CPU power, chip real estate etc. in one package. So, in a modern device, there could be an Intel 4040 at the core, so long as it meets the overall design requirements.
Agreed. The Intel 4040 and similar historic CPUs are still in production. Not for consumers, but for manufacturers of embedded devices.
The actual Intel 4040? Or simply as part of a logic library, used to design custom chips? I suppose someone could build an actual 4040, from the library, but using current technology. Logic libraries are used by chip designers, in the same manner that software libraries are used by programmers. The chip designer chooses the CPU core, memory, I/O etc. and creates the desired function for the finished IC.
Yes of course as a logic library for custom chips. I didn't want to bore people with the details. :) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Knott wrote:
Amedee Van Gasse wrote:
On Mon, January 5, 2009 18:01, Cristian RodrÃguez wrote:
Many years ago, while taking a C programming course, I ran into some "gotchas" with variable sizes, when moving between 32 & 16 bit systems. In class, we were using Borland's Turbo C++ for DOS and at home I had Borland C++ for OS/2. There was a difference in the size of some variable types, such as INT, so that a program that ran fine at home would fail in class, because I had exceeded the maximum integer size. However, I have no idea how 32 & 64 bit systems compare with this issue.
On this one I would point finger at the tutorial/compiler/library not the hardware. C/C++ does (or did) have some defined internal constants/calls that cover variable size issues and these ideally should be used in circumstances where this can be critical. (OK it can make some code look a little more complex so probably not good in all parts of a teaching situation, but it should be part of any C course so the student gets to know that these things exist). But there again Borland C/C++ was built for ease of use and speed of compilation and more than a little eccentric in other areas, I remember discovering with some surprise that the reason some code was slow was due to the compiler using the string index registers for some arithmetic calculations, (Became a MASM job for certain functions :-) ). - -- ============================================================================== I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. Bjarne Stroustrup ============================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkljMwgACgkQasN0sSnLmgIyHwCeJkoEbB7HkmOEZ7S9tYc0C/Zb b6oAoM6zlDTXNAWFHLAa8P6Pie6SfS1K =l2T2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 14:01 -0300, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Per Jessen escribió:
I wouldn't bother. I've recently switched my external servers from 64bit to 32bit - it saved me quite a bit of memory. My workstation is 64bit for now, but I'll most probably also re-install that with 32bit.
And you blamed the 64 bit architecture for bugs in programs ?
64-bit-bugs are bigger ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Per Jessen escribió:
I wouldn't bother. I've recently switched my external servers from 64bit to 32bit - it saved me quite a bit of memory. My workstation is 64bit for now, but I'll most probably also re-install that with 32bit.
And you blamed the 64 bit architecture for bugs in programs ?
No, not at all. I switched back to 32bit for two reasons - 1) memory-usage on the external servers and 2) the effort in maintaining/building for both 32bit and 64bit environments (my test-environment is 32bit). /Per -- /Per Jessen, Zürich -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Linux wrote:
hi... i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz?
In short, if you are going to upgrade despite the cautions, then Yes, Right now my x86_64 install is behaving much better than the i586 install I have. Can't explain it, but it is. I am beginning to suspect a broken ATI driver on the i586 install. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
David C. Rankin wrote:
Linux wrote:
hi... i hv Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB memory on my notebook and i m going to have a fresh install for opensuse 11.1. From opensuse website, it says for my spec, I should go with 64 bit version. What is the plus minus of 32 bit and 64 bit?? Should I go with 64 bit?? Could 64 bit runs Compiz?
In short, if you are going to upgrade despite the cautions, then Yes,
Right now my x86_64 install is behaving much better than the i586 install I have. Can't explain it, but it is. I am beginning to suspect a broken ATI driver on the i586 install.
I tried 64 for one day now. everything looks good and i can get almost all the programs i need to run. 2 notes : Skype doesnt has 64 version, so i need to install some 32bit lib. And i can't get GnoMenu to work until now, dont know why. It worked fine on 32 bit version. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (18)
-
Amedee Van Gasse -
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. -
Clayton -
Cristian Rodríguez -
David C. Rankin -
Dean Hilkewich -
Fred A. Miller -
G T Smith -
Greg Freemyer -
Hans Witvliet -
James Knott -
Jim Henderson -
Linux -
Mads Martin Joergensen -
Mike McMullin -
MikeDL -
Per Jessen -
Teruel de Campo MD