Hardware experiences?

[Christopher Browne]

On 9/8/06, Simon <simon80-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> In my humble opinon, sticking with 32-bit is much, much easier, unless
> you have too much RAM.  Too much closed source crap to worry about,
> and it doesn't make a significant difference in performance.  I mean,
> of course, some people aren't doing it for that reason, they just want
> to early-adopt, and then my logic is irrelevant..  Also, I only tried
> 64-bit stuff when I was still a bit of a newb.

For a very large number of the "use cases," this is complete rubbish.

One definition of "average" for "average Linux box" is that it is a
system sitting at an ISP running Apache, SSH, Perl, Python, PHP, and
perhaps one of the free software databases.

There are a LOT of those systems out there, and they perfectly well
take advantage of 64 bit architectures.

The prime "use case" where 64 bit *presently* falls down somewhat is
what strikes me as a MINORITY scenario, namely "Attempted Windows
Replacement," where you need fairly much virus-for-virus compatibility
deployed to people for whom any difference between what they get and
the way Windows does things represents a bug.

If what you actually want is Windows, then it seems to me that
Microsoft does a better job of deploying that.

I migrated my home systems to Alpha and AMD-64 some time ago and
haven't had *any* 32 bit Linux around for at least a year or so now.
-- 
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
Oddly enough, this is completely standard behaviour for shells. This
is a roundabout way of saying `don't use combined chains of `&&'s and
`||'s unless you think Gödel's theorem is for sissies'.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wini/Mailing_lists