e all know this already (or at least should). However, again, it's
> irrelevant to _this_ thread.
Why?
> This thread, and my comments, deal with Atom based systems with less
> than 2GB of RAM. This thread is not about 32bit vs 64bit binary
> performance in general.
No, this thread i
Vincent Lefevre put forth on 2/17/2010 6:21 AM:
> On 2010-02-16 09:52:06 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into,
>> 32bit binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit
>> cousins, and they'll take up a little bit less disk spac
Tixy put forth on 2/17/2010 11:11 AM:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:56 -0800, Mark wrote:
>
>> for some reason Lenny reports dual Atom processors even though the
>> specs for the machine only list one (??).
>
>
> I've noticed that as well. The Atom has Hyper-Threading, so it can run
> two threads
Running Debian Lenny:
l...@tux:~$ uname -a
Linux Tux 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 10 08:59:21 UTC 2010 i686
GNU/Linux l...@tux:~$
>>> Debian uses "i386" for naming the whole 32 bits architecture:
>> I understand what you are saying, and would not argue with it. - but why then
>
On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 08:56 -0800, Mark wrote:
> for some reason Lenny reports dual Atom processors even though the
> specs for the machine only list one (??).
I've noticed that as well. The Atom has Hyper-Threading, so it can run
two threads simultaneously on one core; that could explain it.
>
> >On Tue,16.Feb.10, 10:34:09, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
>
[snip]
My gf has a Dell Mini with Intel Atom 1.6 GHz processor. I installed Lenny
32 bit i386 and it works; for some reason Lenny reports dual Atom p
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:07:50 +, Lisi wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 11:59:05 Camaleón wrote:
>> Debian uses "i386" for naming the whole 32 bits architecture:
>>
>> http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch02s01.html.en#id3060035
>>
>> Other distros use "x86" for i386/i486/i586/i68
Lisi:
> On Wednesday 17 February 2010 11:59:05 Camaleón wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:47:44 +, Lisi wrote:
>>>
>>> Running Debian Lenny:
>>> l...@tux:~$ uname -a
>>> Linux Tux 2.6.26-2-686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 10 08:59:21 UTC 2010 i686
>>> GNU/Linux l...@tux:~$
>>
>> Debian uses "i386" for namin
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 01:11:06PM +, Kelly Harding wrote:
> On 17 February 2010 13:08, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
> >
> > I'm not sure, I guess it's still called "alpha". But that's just a label,
> > it's as stable as the 32-bit version.
> >
> >
>
> I found iwhen I last used it it caused Firefox to
On 17 February 2010 13:08, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
wrote:
> On 02/17/2010 11:03 AM, Kelly Harding wrote:
>>
>> Was still true as of last year sometime, last I checked the 64bit
>> flash plugin was in alpha, but i suspect its probably gone past beta
>> by now?
>>
>
> I'm not sure, I guess it's still c
On 02/17/2010 11:03 AM, Kelly Harding wrote:
Was still true as of last year sometime, last I checked the 64bit
flash plugin was in alpha, but i suspect its probably gone past beta
by now?
I'm not sure, I guess it's still called "alpha". But that's just a
label, it's as stable as the 32-bit
On Wednesday 17 February 2010 11:59:05 Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:47:44 +, Lisi wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:48:03 Camaleón wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > [snip]
>> >> > I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x8
>>
>
> That might have been true some time ago, but a 64-bit flash plugins exists
> since some time already, and works as good (or as bad) as the 32-bit one.
>
> Nowadays, the only reason I have a 32-bit chroot in my 64-bit system is
> because my bank's site only works with the 32-bit Java plugin f
On 02/17/2010 10:54 AM, Kelly Harding wrote:
whilst that is true, for a desktop box, 64bit causes more problems
than it is worth i've found, especially with things like Flash.
That might have been true some time ago, but a 64-bit flash plugins
exists since some time already, and works as g
>
> No, this depends on the application (and "usually" doesn't mean very
> much because applications will depend on what the machine is used
> for). And some people would completely disagree with you, e.g.:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae&num=1
>
> There's anoth
On 2010-02-16 09:52:06 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into,
> 32bit binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit
> cousins, and they'll take up a little bit less disk space.
No, this depends on the application (and "usually
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:47:44 +, Lisi wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:48:03 Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> [snip]
>> > I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x86/i686/IA32 or
>> > whichever name you like to use to refer to it
On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:48:03 Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
[snip]
> > I.e. just use your regular 32bit Intel install (i386/x86/i686/IA32 or
> > whichever name you like to use to refer to it).
>
> In Debian is called "i386".
Running Debian Lenny
Marc Olive put forth on 2/17/2010 1:33 AM:
> El Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:52:06 Stan Hoeppner va escriure:
>> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into, 32bit
>> binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit cousins
>
> Really? Didn't know.
> 64bit binaries
On Mi,17.feb.10, 08:10:36, Kelly Harding wrote:
> > Atom 330 supports 4GB AFAIK.
>
> It depends which chipset it is put with, theres a few combinations iirc.
>
> Some are limited to 1.5Gb/2Gb, others more.
>
> Dunno about the ION combo.
It's the nVidia ION I had in mind ;)
Regards,
Andrei
--
>>
>> Don't bother checking: since you had to ask the question, you won't care
>> whether you run a 64bit or 32bit kernel, and since those processors
>> don't support much more than 2GB anyway, there's no point running
>> a 64bit kernel.
>
> Atom 330 supports 4GB AFAIK.
>
It depends which chipset
El Tuesday 16 February 2010 16:52:06 Stan Hoeppner va escriure:
> As a bonus, due to various architectural reasons I won't delve into, 32bit
> binaries will usually run slightly faster than the 64 bit cousins
Really? Didn't know.
64bit binaries should be faster than a 32bit one... where's the prob
On Tue,16.Feb.10, 10:34:09, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
> > It depends on the exact model.
> > There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast
> > majority don't (just 32 bits, so i3
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:33:14 +1100, Alex Samad wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:48:03PM +, Camaleón wrote:
>> There are still reasons to install a 64 bits kernel if the micro
>> supports it. In fact, I have an Intel Celeron with just 1 GiB of RAM
>> (max. allowed is 2 GiB) and installed a
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:48:03PM +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
[snip]
> There are still reasons to install a 64 bits kernel if the micro supports
> it. In fact, I have an Intel Celeron with just 1 GiB of RAM (max. allowed
> is 2 GiB) and
Stefan Monnier put forth on 2/16/2010 9:34 AM:
>>> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
>> It depends on the exact model.
>> There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast
>> majority don't (just 32 bits, so i386 is
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:34:09 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
>> It depends on the exact model.
>> There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast
>> majority don't (just 32 bits, so i3
>> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
> It depends on the exact model.
> There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast
> majority don't (just 32 bits, so i386 is required), so better check first
> the serial number.
Don'
>>> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
Or maybe just boot an amd64 CD and see if it works??
--
Glenn English
g...@slsware.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 10:37 +0100, Marc Olive wrote:
> El Tuesday 16 February 2010 10:09:34 Warren King va escriure:
> > Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
>
> If it's a 64 bits one you should use amd64, otherwise or in doubt use x86.
Just for clari
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 01:09:34 -0800, Warren King wrote:
> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
It depends on the exact model.
There are some Atom micros supporting 64 bits (amd64) but the vast
majority don't (just 32 bits, so i386 is required), so better check fi
Marc Olive schreef:
El Tuesday 16 February 2010 10:09:34 Warren King va escriure:
Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
If it's a 64 bits one you should use amd64, otherwise or in doubt use x86.
So look up your processor in the list on
http://en.wikipedia.org
El Tuesday 16 February 2010 10:09:34 Warren King va escriure:
> Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
If it's a 64 bits one you should use amd64, otherwise or in doubt use x86.
> Warren King
>
> wk...@meritel.com
--
Marc Olivé
Grup Blau
--
To UNSU
Which architecture should I use for an Intel Atom Processor?
Warren King
wk...@meritel.com
34 matches
Mail list logo
