Why do newbies go for 64 bits?
in [UK Linux]
|
Prev: ACPI problems with Centrino processor
Next: Just $15
From: Martin Gregorie on 21 Nov 2009 15:18 I notice, over on the WINE users list, that a lot of newbies go straight for the 64 bit version of Ubuntu and stick with it despite the fact that WINE-64 doesn't work yet and installing the 32 bit libraries to run 32 bit WINE is hassle that could be avoided by running a 32 bit Ubuntu. 64 is a bigger number than 32, so is this simply a lemming-like bigger is better knee-jerk? Is there any good reason for running a 64 environment if the box is just running OpenOffice/email/Firefox, playing games under WINE and maybe listening to music or watching DVDs? Do the likes of Audacity or video editors ever want enough RAM to run better in a 64 bit environment? I can't think of anything else that a home user might want to run that might processes occupying more than 500MB RAM. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
From: Baron on 21 Nov 2009 15:36 Martin Gregorie wrote: > I notice, over on the WINE users list, that a lot of newbies go > straight for the 64 bit version of Ubuntu and stick with it despite > the fact that WINE-64 doesn't work yet and installing the 32 bit > libraries to run 32 bit WINE is hassle that could be avoided by > running a 32 bit Ubuntu. 64 is a bigger number than 32, so is this > simply a lemming-like bigger is better knee-jerk? Its like offering kids two or three sweets, they will always take three ! > Is there any good reason for running a 64 environment if the box is > just running OpenOffice/email/Firefox, playing games under WINE and > maybe listening to music or watching DVDs? > > Do the likes of Audacity or video editors ever want enough RAM to run > better in a 64 bit environment? I can't think of anything else that a > home user might want to run that might processes occupying more than > 500MB RAM. > > -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: Tony Houghton on 21 Nov 2009 17:26 In <he9hu8$1dn$1(a)localhost.localdomain>, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > I notice, over on the WINE users list, that a lot of newbies go straight > for the 64 bit version of Ubuntu and stick with it despite the fact that > WINE-64 doesn't work yet and installing the 32 bit libraries to run 32 > bit WINE is hassle that could be avoided by running a 32 bit Ubuntu. 64 > is a bigger number than 32, so is this simply a lemming-like bigger is > better knee-jerk? > > Is there any good reason for running a 64 environment if the box is just > running OpenOffice/email/Firefox, playing games under WINE and maybe > listening to music or watching DVDs? > > Do the likes of Audacity or video editors ever want enough RAM to run > better in a 64 bit environment? I can't think of anything else that a > home user might want to run that might processes occupying more than > 500MB RAM. 64-bit should also offer performance advantages. For a start binary distributions don't have to ignore the last 20 years of x86 development like SSE and MMX to cater for all users. And amd64/EMT64 has a lot more general purpose registers than IA32, which is especially important when nearly everything you run was compiled with gcc instead of a compiler designed for x86 from the ground up by a mega corporation. Having said that, I bet I'd never notice the difference in performance :-). ISTR it's said to make the most impact in things like processing video. -- TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
From: Folderol on 21 Nov 2009 18:23 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:26:46 +0000 (UTC) Tony Houghton <h(a)realh.co.uk> wrote: > In <he9hu8$1dn$1(a)localhost.localdomain>, > Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > > > I notice, over on the WINE users list, that a lot of newbies go straight > > for the 64 bit version of Ubuntu and stick with it despite the fact that > > WINE-64 doesn't work yet and installing the 32 bit libraries to run 32 > > bit WINE is hassle that could be avoided by running a 32 bit Ubuntu. 64 > > is a bigger number than 32, so is this simply a lemming-like bigger is > > better knee-jerk? > > > > Is there any good reason for running a 64 environment if the box is just > > running OpenOffice/email/Firefox, playing games under WINE and maybe > > listening to music or watching DVDs? > > > > Do the likes of Audacity or video editors ever want enough RAM to run > > better in a 64 bit environment? I can't think of anything else that a > > home user might want to run that might processes occupying more than > > 500MB RAM. > > 64-bit should also offer performance advantages. For a start binary > distributions don't have to ignore the last 20 years of x86 development > like SSE and MMX to cater for all users. And amd64/EMT64 has a lot more > general purpose registers than IA32, which is especially important when > nearly everything you run was compiled with gcc instead of a compiler > designed for x86 from the ground up by a mega corporation. > > Having said that, I bet I'd never notice the difference in performance > :-). ISTR it's said to make the most impact in things like processing > video. Try using hydrogen + zynaddsubfx + jamin + rosegarden with qjackctl - you'll notice the difference then alright :o -- Will J G
From: Martin Gregorie on 21 Nov 2009 19:35
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:23:09 +0000, Folderol wrote: > Try using hydrogen + zynaddsubfx + jamin + rosegarden with qjackctl - > you'll notice the difference then alright :o > I know next to nothing about music programs. I can rip vinyl onto CD with Audacity, but that's about it, so why do you say that? I mean, how many of these programs' memory requirements bust the 32 bit addressing limit. IOW does running a 64 bit OS buy you anything with that process mix that a few more cores and the odd extra GB of RAM wouldn't also solve? Disclaimer: the only time I've written anything that needed great steaming gobs of RAM per process was when I needed a minimum of 25,000 lookups per second on a non-static database of 350M items, so I used a red-black binary tree that was entirely in RAM - around 4.5GB of data. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |