Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Poor 64-Bit Dimdows...

Reply
Thread Tools

Poor 64-Bit Dimdows...

 
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2010
Carnations wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:32:35 +0000, Carnations wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:17:51 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>
>>> If you have a 64 bit Linux you will find two directories in root called
>>> /lib and /lib32 (I believe that RedHat might do it the other way
>>> around, having /lib and /lib64). If you use the normal installer you
>>> will get both sets of libraries. Are you sure that all your apps are 64
>>> bit? Have you checked?

>> No I haven't explicitly checked, but I'm using a 64bit distro - even the
>> browser is 64bit 'coz that is the version that I installed.
>>
>> Ah, now that I think about it, OOo is a 32bit program.
>>
>> SuSE has /lib and /lib64.

>
> But actually, now that I've checked even OOo is a 64bit version - I've just checked the installer.
>

OK. I haven't been able to find a 32bit executable on my Ubuntu, but I'm
sure there are some.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2010
In message <hhkdks$78u$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

> Windows comes with [32-bit compatible libraries], so it is a non issue for
> internet explorer and silverlight on that platform.


There is still the issue that you need to run two different versions of
Internet Explorer on 64-bit Dimdows, one compatible with 32-bit plugins and
one compatible with 64-bit.

I gather this also applies to Dimdows Media Player, because there are 32-bit
codecs and 64-bit ones.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Carnations
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2010
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:50:06 +1300, geoff wrote:

>> Altho' why anyone would need 12gb of RAM on a desktop computer being
>> used to access the www
>> with a Microsoft browser I really don't know - unless the actual real
>> performance of that system is so appallingly poor that it really needs
>> all that RAM just to work normally.!

>
> Maybe they also want to edit video or photos, or run huge audio
> samplers.


Maybe they only referred to using MSIE and a browser plugin.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Carnations
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2010
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:46:56 +1300, geoff wrote:

>>> You don't have an option of not installing 32 bit libraries on 64 bit
>>> Linux.

>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> I don't have any 32bit applications installed.

>
> You may just want to one day - you never know.


If I want to install a 32bit binary then I suppose I could do so. My point is that the root user should be
able to have only the absolute minimum installed in order to use that computer for its intended purpose.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Carnations
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2010
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:46:09 +1300, geoff wrote:

>>> Windows comes with them, so it is a non issue for internet explorer
>>> and silverlight on that platform.

>>
>> But what if you don't WANT to have them installed?

>
> Fortunately only a very few people are that obtuse.


Yes - its obtuse to want nothing installed that isn't actually being used. It is good security practise to
only have installed those programs that need to be installed. Surely you knew that.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2010
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Carnations wrote:

> But actually, now that I've checked even OOo is a 64bit version - I've
> just checked the installer.


I had to thread my way through a few levels of shell scripts to get to the
actual binaries, but here are the results on my 64-bit Debian system:

ldo@theon:~> file /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.18, stripped
ldo@theon:~> file /usr/lib/openoffice/program/oosplash.bin
/usr/lib/openoffice/program/oosplash.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.18, stripped

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2010
In message <0c6fb3ab-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)>, John Little wrote:

> Using a large address space, much larger than the hardware addressable
> memory, can be used for different programming paradigms.


I thought it was a missed opportunity that AMD didn’t reserve the bottom 3
bits of every address for a bit offset into the byte. It makes certain kinds
of manipulations so much easier if bit-aligned pointers can be treated the
same as byte-aligned ones.

> It's not necessarily a better way, and it can break the Unix
> everything-is-a-file concept.


It also doesn’t handle the concept of unbounded data streams very well.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2010
impossible wrote:
>
> "Carnations" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:32:35 +0000, Carnations wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:17:51 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you have a 64 bit Linux you will find two directories in root called
>>>> /lib and /lib32 (I believe that RedHat might do it the other way
>>>> around, having /lib and /lib64). If you use the normal installer you
>>>> will get both sets of libraries. Are you sure that all your apps are 64
>>>> bit? Have you checked?
>>>
>>> No I haven't explicitly checked, but I'm using a 64bit distro - even the
>>> browser is 64bit 'coz that is the version that I installed.
>>>
>>> Ah, now that I think about it, OOo is a 32bit program.
>>>
>>> SuSE has /lib and /lib64.

>>
>> But actually, now that I've checked even OOo is a 64bit version - I've
>> just checked the installer.
>>

>
> Dead wrong as usual, ConMan. OO is a 32-bit application that is
> compatible with 64-bit platforms.
>

No, I have a 64bit version from the standard Ubuntu repositories. Maybe
the Windows version is restricted to 32 bit.

/usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable,
x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
GNU/Linux 2.6.15, stripped

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2010
geoff wrote:
> Carnations wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:56:31 -0600, impossible wrote:
>>
>>> Greater memory access is the **only** advantage today of a 64-bit os.
>>> For that reason -- and that reason only -- I'm moving to Windows 7
>>> 64-bit with 12 GB of triple-channel Ram. That way, my 32-bit desktop
>>> applications -- including IE8 and Flash Player -- will all perform
>>> better.

>> In case you hadn't noticed it, but 32bit applications can only
>> manipulate up to 4gb of data at one time.
>>
>> Altho' why anyone would need 12gb of RAM on a desktop computer being
>> used to access the www
>> with a Microsoft browser I really don't know - unless the actual real
>> performance of that system is so appallingly poor that it really
>> needs all that RAM just to work normally.!
>>

>
> Maybe they also want to edit video or photos, or run huge audio samplers.
>

The poster who mentioned 12GB RAM does do that, but mentioned only IE8
and Flash in the original post.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2010
impossible wrote:
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4b3fecd3$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> "Carnations" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:32:35 +0000, Carnations wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:17:51 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have a 64 bit Linux you will find two directories in root
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> /lib and /lib32 (I believe that RedHat might do it the other way
>>>>>> around, having /lib and /lib64). If you use the normal installer you
>>>>>> will get both sets of libraries. Are you sure that all your apps
>>>>>> are 64
>>>>>> bit? Have you checked?
>>>>>
>>>>> No I haven't explicitly checked, but I'm using a 64bit distro -
>>>>> even the
>>>>> browser is 64bit 'coz that is the version that I installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, now that I think about it, OOo is a 32bit program.
>>>>>
>>>>> SuSE has /lib and /lib64.
>>>>
>>>> But actually, now that I've checked even OOo is a 64bit version -
>>>> I've just checked the installer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dead wrong as usual, ConMan. OO is a 32-bit application that is
>>> compatible with 64-bit platforms.
>> >

>> No, I have a 64bit version from the standard Ubuntu repositories.
>> Maybe the Windows version is restricted to 32 bit.
>>
>> /usr/lib/openoffice/program/soffice.bin: ELF 64-bit LSB executable,
>> x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for
>> GNU/Linux 2.6.15, stripped
>>

>
> LOL. OpenOffice is a a 32-bit application that has been ported to 64-bit
> Linux. Functionally, there is no difference whatsoever -- other than the
> fact that the 64-bit version consumes more memory. If Microsoft pulled a
> stunt like that, they'd be justifiably ridiculed. But ok, you've got me
> on a technicality -- mea culpa.
>

Well, it does allow the easier editting of larger files than the 32 bit
version does, though I'd not swear to it that it wasn't some other
change in the app that allowed it to more easily edit large files. I'd
hope that they would have improved it somewhat to use the 64 bit
abilities of the OS and chip.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
the same old personalities show through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late... Rich Digital Photography 66 06-11-2009 04:48 AM
Poor reception, poor connection, and dropped signal =?Utf-8?B?dW51c3VhbHBzeWNobw==?= Wireless Networking 2 06-07-2006 12:54 AM
Poor signal strength after connecting to network =?Utf-8?B?dmlsbGFnZSBpZGlvdA==?= Wireless Networking 6 04-01-2005 07:19 PM
Does no one else think microsoft does a poor job? =?Utf-8?B?SmVyZW15IEx1bmRncmVu?= Wireless Networking 2 11-20-2004 12:17 AM
wireless signal strength is really poor? Devin Panchal Wireless Networking 2 07-20-2004 12:40 AM



Advertisments