Hardware experiences?

[Jamon Camisso]

Simon wrote:
> You know, if the OP was talking about making a server box, you'd be
> right, and I totally agree with you, but it looks like he's talking
> about making a desktop system.  You seem to incorrectly think that
> the Linux desktop use case always involves a need for an unnatural
> compatibility with windows.  I'm using it in a desktop situation, and
> I definitely don't want it to emulate Windows the way you describe.
> However, if I want to run flash, or mplayer with the closed source
> codecs, or any free software app that hasn't been ported to 64-bit (I
> know, these apps should be ashamed), I need to be running those apps
> in 32-bit mode.  So my point was just that I don't think it's worth it
> to boot up in 64-bit rather than just run everything in 32-bit and not
> have to worry about this stuff until I see some decisive benchmarks
> that prove me wrong.

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/1747228 is the best 
of the three (read most favourable to 64 bit :)

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=5768 for a SPARC based 
comparison, most compelling benchmark to stay with 32bit (on SPARC anyways)

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1665&page=9 for a 
windows based 32 vs 64bit comparison, again, 64 is favoured.

http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2447&p=5 some database 
benchmarks, opteron and xeon, 32 and 64bit comparisons (gentoo users 
take note of the "standard tuned Gentoo installation")

--
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