64-bit netbooks with Debian linux
in [Debian]
|
From: Mark Allums on 4 May 2010 00:50 On 5/3/2010 11:01 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Mark Allums put forth on 5/3/2010 5:01 PM: > >> With 64 bits, you will need more memory, so I suggest you look for a >> machine that can use 4 GB of memory. > > A user's application usage patterns dictate how much memory the machine > needs, not the width of the CPU registers. The comment above belongs in the > winders user world, not here on the debian-user list, where we are assumed > to be competent OPs. The reasoning behind your suggestion is totally flawed. > No, 64-bit binaries are larger. This indicates to me that more memory is very useful to have. I admit I am just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous, rather than an expert, but on this subject I am confident I am correct. Please do not try to insult. It is not really useful, and wastes time. MAA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BDFA58B.6050101(a)allums.com
From: Stan Hoeppner on 4 May 2010 01:50 Mark Allums put forth on 5/3/2010 11:41 PM: > On 5/3/2010 11:01 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Mark Allums put forth on 5/3/2010 5:01 PM: >> >>> With 64 bits, you will need more memory, so I suggest you look for a >>> machine that can use 4 GB of memory. >> >> A user's application usage patterns dictate how much memory the machine >> needs, not the width of the CPU registers. The comment above belongs >> in the >> winders user world, not here on the debian-user list, where we are >> assumed >> to be competent OPs. The reasoning behind your suggestion is totally >> flawed. > > No, 64-bit binaries are larger. This indicates to me that more memory > is very useful to have. If wallets were all unlimited, we'd all have all our DIMM slots maxed. I made the same argument as you quite some time ago in favor of 32bit Linux for small systems such as netbooks. I was shot down and educated on the actual memory footprint of the x86-64 binaries, and it turns out they're not that much larger overall, and not nearly to the size that one should need 4GB RAM on a netbook. Most of them come with 2GB anyway, which should be more than enough for just about all application mixes, whether one chooses a 64bit OS+apps or 32bit. > I admit I am just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous, rather than an > expert, but on this subject I am confident I am correct. Correct in that one should get 4GB on a netbook due to 64bit binary size? Or correct that 64bit binaries are (slightly) larger than 32bit binaries? I'd agree with you on the latter but not on the former. Stating the case of the former is spreading misinformation. I attempted to shoot it down. It is simply not correct to recommend 4GB for the reason you stated. > Please do not try to insult. It is not really useful, and wastes time. Apologies. It wasn't meant as an insult but as an exclamation point backing incredulity. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BDFB414.6080606(a)hardwarefreak.com
From: Mark Allums on 4 May 2010 03:00 On 5/4/2010 12:43 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Please do not try to insult. It is not really useful, and wastes time. > > Apologies. It wasn't meant as an insult but as an exclamation point backing > incredulity. >> A user's application usage patterns dictate how much memory the machine >> needs, not the width of the CPU registers. The comment above belongs in the >> winders user world, not here on the debian-user list, where we are assumed >> to be competent OPs. The reasoning behind your suggestion is totally flawed. If you want to tell me that I am mistaken, that my reasoning is flawed, then explain why. That is sufficient. MAA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BDFC552.10805(a)allums.com
From: deloptes on 4 May 2010 07:10 Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > I listed the machine closest to your requirements in my last email. It > meets all your requirements but for the 2MB L2 cache. TTBOMK, there are > no > netbooks with 2MB L2 cpu cache. Neither AMD nor Intel make a CPU with 2MB > L2 cache for this class of machines. > you saved me a lot of time - thanks a lot -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/hrov46$jcs$1(a)dough.gmane.org
From: Alex Samad on 4 May 2010 19:50
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 00:43 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Mark Allums put forth on 5/3/2010 11:41 PM: > > On 5/3/2010 11:01 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> Mark Allums put forth on 5/3/2010 5:01 PM: > >> [snip] > Correct in that one should get 4GB on a netbook due to 64bit binary size? > Or correct that 64bit binaries are (slightly) larger than 32bit binaries? > I'd agree with you on the latter but not on the former. Stating the case of > the former is spreading misinformation. I attempted to shoot it down. It > is simply not correct to recommend 4GB for the reason you stated. > > > Please do not try to insult. It is not really useful, and wastes time. > right tools for the job, I never ever thought about putting 64bit os on my netbook - it physically limited to 2G of memory > Apologies. It wasn't meant as an insult but as an exclamation point backing > incredulity. > > -- > Stan > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1273016523.20116.37.camel(a)alex-mini.samad.com.au |