"chrisv" <chrisv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:q92lc4pnvk9ua43rjoteu4u2sts0p3an5p@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subway steel wrote:
>
>>So unless home users are typically using multi-terabyte databases then
>>what
>>is the point of having a 64-bit OS. For general purpose computing it's
>>going
>>to be about 5-10% slower and it's going to take more memory. I don't see
>>how
>>a 64-bit OS (any 64-bit OS) is more "sensible" for desktop computing
>>needs
>
> Unless it's Visduh, for which 2G is about the minimum decent
> configuration, making 4G a very reasonable configuration...
A 32-bit OS is certainly able to handle 4 Gigs of memory. Our customers who
need a 64-bit OS typically have around 192 Gigs of RAM.
> --
> "Linux is currently going nowhere on the desktop." - "True Linux
> advocate" Hadron Quark
|
|
