Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Linux Kernel Space Benchmark: 32 Bit Versus 64 Bit

Hash: SHA1

____/ Peter KÃhlmann on Wednesday 30 Dec 2009 20:47 : \____

> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | For this comparison we used Ubuntu 9.10 on a
>> | Lenovo ThinkPad T61 notebook running an Intel
>> | Core 2 Duo T9300 processor, 4GB of system
>> | memory, a 100GB Hitachi HTS7220 SATA HDD, and a
>> | NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M. We were using the
>> | Ubuntu-supplied kernels that are based off the
>> | Linux 2.6.31 kernel in Ubuntu Karmic. Other
>> | packages that were maintained included GNOME
>> | 2.28.1, X Server 1.6.4, NVIDIA 195.22 display
>> | driver, GCC 4.4.1, and we were using the
>> | default EXT4 file-system with all other
>> | defaults. With Ubuntu to properly address 4GB
>> | or greater of system memory you need to use a
>> | PAE kernel as the Physical Address Extension
>> | support through the kernel's high-mem
>> | configuration options are not enabled in the
>> | default 32-bit kernels.
>> `----
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1
> Oh, oh, now our resident 64bit "specialist" Hadron Snot Quark has some
> heavy explanation to do why, totally different from his ascertions, the
> 64bit linux trounced the 32bit counterpart on *every* test.
> Which was maintained as fact all along from linux users who actually use
> linux *and* especially in the 64bit version, and which was all the time
> naysaid by Hadron and comrades (after all, 64bit windows is actually
> *slower* than 32bit windows, as there are practically no 64bit apps. Can't
> have that, can we?)
> And here we have *again* a benchmark where 64bit linux was faster, in in
> several cases *dramatically* faster than 32bit
> I guess Hadrons "explanation" will be that those guys are "lying
> freetards"

Microsoft has to throw mud at 64-bit because it's still struggling to get it working. 

Next Release of OneCare Won't Support Vista x64

,----[ Quote ]
| When Microsoft announced that it was ready to roll out Windows Live
| OneCare version 1.5 to coincide with the general release of Windows
| Vista, it omitted one important fact: the product will not support
| Vista x64 or XP x64.


"Valued customers" bug Neat Receipts over Vista support 

,----[ Quote ]
| There, people wonder why it's just so difficult for firms to develop 64-bit 
| drivers. Microsoft might be a better company to ask - but we suspect it's a 
| huge sea change and we are just the flots and the jets being carried along on 
| the top of an irresistible wave.   


Microsoft Vista 64 bit is no go in 2007 

,----[ Quote ]
| Without an exception, they all think it's too early and the drivers
| won't be that polished for 64 bit either. AMD and Intel have CPUs which
| can support 64 operating systems but the drivers are still lame,
| unpolished and slow compared with 32 bit.


Vista 64 VS Vista 32

,----[ Quote ]
| Vista 64 has a slight advantage over the 32 Bit version speed
| wise, unfortunately due to the stringent drivers requirements
| for the 64 Bit versions, at this point
| my recommendations are to stick with the 32 Bit version of
| Vista until most of  hardware manufacturers and software
| manufactures (including Microsoft) decide to actually take
| advantage of the 64 Bit architecture!
| Even better: get serious and do some progress in this
| industry, I am sick and tired to just see marketing
| numbers and not actually progress here.


Windows XP 64 is crap and things break and printers dont work and
quickbooks doesnt work the list goes on

,----[ Quote ]
| Morale (sic) of the story is - if you are using Microsoft products, stay
| away from the cutting edge - it sucks pretty bad.


Support for Microsoft Windows XP x64 Not Worth Anything

,----[ Quote ]
| Almost no one is supporting Microsoft Windows XP x64, the 64-bit
| version of Windows XP.
| There are no Antivirus programs that work with x64 and most
| applications won't work with x64 (unless they run the crippled
| 32-bit equivalent).
| Programs won't install printer drivers because, apparently, no one
| can figure out how to write a 64-bit printer driver.
| If Windows XP x64 has this much trouble with basic elements such
| as printer drivers, how can anyone expect the much maligned Windows
| Vista to be of any value?
| Frankly, my high opinion of Microsoft is quickly fading away, and
| my shop used to be a staunch Microsoft shop.
| Open Source alternatives are looking better and better every
| day.


Vista users get the 64-bit blues

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft is keen to stir up enthusiasm for Windows Vista, but
| when it comes to the 64-bit edition of the recently released
| operating system, the software giant is sending decidedly
| mixed messages.


The typical Microsoft strategy is to mock everything _it's still working on_ 
until it's done (like Web-based office suites, versus Google for the most part).

- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes

http://Schestowitz.com  | Free as in Free Beer |  PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Cpu(s): 22.6%us,  5.0%sy,  0.1%ni, 70.6%id,  1.3%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.4%si,  0.0%st
      http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index