On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 12:53:14 +0000
"Fred Nevez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please include the CC in a reply. I include your full mail for the
benefit of readers of lame-dev@ and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The current version of lame does not work on AMD64 , that's why i asked you
That's not a sufficient bug report...
I don't know about Win64, but the amd64 version of FreeBSD is able to
run ia32 programs. I expect Win64 to have the same possibility. If it
hasn't "does not work" is obvious and I agree that an amd64 version is
needed.
I don't have access to a Windows development environment (I'm a
Unix-guy) and the LAME project doesn't provides binaries for _any_
platform (legal reasons). In this case you have to hope for a nice guy
on one of the lists.
If Win64 is able to run 32bit apps we need a detailed bug report
(version of lame, how you tried to encode, the error output) on the
lame-dev mailinglist.
> and and i really think the cpu can handle such a work with his big cache ,
> i'm running Win XP64 since some day n before i was under Win XP32 with the
> same hardware , and i really feel that my comp is faster than before , for
> the os , for the apps i do not know , that's why i wanna maje a try , i'm
An OS isn't CPU bound (other reason why Win64 may feel faster than Win32
left out), LAME is.
> sure we can expect some better performance , not 2x faster for sure but
> better ...
To benchmark a difference you need a working 32bit version of lame.
> Thanks to consider it again
Bye,
Alexander.
--
I will be available to get hired in April 2004.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
_______________________________________________
mp3encoder mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
