__/ [yccheok@xxxxxxxxx] on Friday 16 September 2005 16:27 \__
> I wish to migrate to Linux platfrom. However, the resouces supported
> stop me from doing this:
Have you spoken to an Linux expert with broad background in computer vision
on that platform? If not, I suggest you do.
> (1) We are in a high speed machine vision. We need to inspect object up
> to 10um resolution in a very short time. Currently, most of the open
> source library I encouter is not optimize for the following :
>
> (a) A very large image, says about 1GB.
> (b) High speed inspection.
Speaking of a barebone Linux machine per se, it is far more capable in term
of power than a Windows equivalent. You just need to find the right
software package, which exploits the hardware and kernel that's underneath.
> We can achieve that by using some commercial frame grabber driver, and
> commercial image processing package. However, I am doubt for the open
> source. I realize that most of them are not optimized for SIMD. Please
> correct me if I were wrong.
You would need to ask someone who has done or is doing that in Linux. I am
sure people have deployed something of this nature.
> Of course, I still explore for the oportunity to explore to Linux
> platform. This is because we need 64 bit memory mapping to address
> more than 4 GB memory. I would like to compare the performance of winxp
> 64 with Linux 64.
>
> Thank you very much!
Linux retains a separate partition for its memory swap, which is one among
several aspects that Windows must catch up with. If you need more than 4 GB
of memory, in terms of efficiency, I am certain that Linux will be a
winner.
I recently heard about 64-bit Linux machines with obscene amounts of
physical RAM. I suggest you ask these questions in the Linux newsgroups.
I'd recommend comp.os.linux.misc, which is fairly active. Do not bog down
to computer vision or Windows specifics.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Viruses to Linux is like cancer to a shark
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
5:25pm up 22 days 5:39, 3 users, load average: 0.15, 0.39, 0.34
|
|
