Hi The issue with Ubuntu has nothing to do with processor or bits but with Qt version. I tracked this down a while ago and I have a build for Ubuntu that should work. I asked Jason to put it up on the Quackle website but I don't see it there yet.
Matt On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Andrew Hime <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Wow. Who dedicated August as "Be Patronizing To Hime Month" and why did no > one tell me? > > I don't know what the minimum system requirements on Windows for Quackle > are, but it wouldn't shock me if it's compiled as low-level as possible - > Pentium? Pentium II? As such, I imagine it features zero processor > optimizations. Consider that AMD64 spec processors almost universally > include command sets up to SSE3, and with the various number crunching going > on, I can imagine there is some performance increase, not to mention the > increased register sizes may be useful. > > Most people for some reason are in a rush to claim that there's no benefit > to switching to 64-bit programs... I honestly think they're just avoiding > doing the work. I'd love to see a simple benchmark done just by recompiling > without any work on the source code. To me, it doesn't seem like a lot. But > apparently in the free software world, you're not allowed to ask for things. > > -- > It only took 15 years for me to get a sig... to shamelessly promote my > podcast. http://www.valuecube.com > > Aug 14, 2010 11:17:48 PM, > [email protected]<quackle%40yahoogroups.com>wrote: > > =========================================== > > > It's impossible to make a generalization about the performance > characteristics of 32-bit vs. 64-bit programs. It is not true, > for exampe, that 64-bit programs can be expected to be twice as > fast because there are twice as many bits. I could explain why > this is, but the explanation is pretty technical. But just trust > me, it doesn't work that way. In fact, depending upon the nature > of how a given program works, it's actually possible for a 64-bit > version to be *slower* than a 32-bit version, all other things > being equal. > > There is only one true generalization one can make about 64-bit > programs, and that is that they are capable of accessing far more > memory than 32-bit programs. This can be very important for > certain high-performance computing applications that deal with > large amounts of data, but that does not describe Quackle. > > So, there may or may not be a performance increase associated with > compiling Quackle under 64-bit Windows. If there is, I suspect it's > comparatively small, but that's a guess. Assuming that Win64 Qt > builds without much difficulty, it probably would be easy for me > to test, but I just don't have the time right now. I'm absolutely > saturated. > > As for the Linux issues, perhaps the easier route would be to install > 32-bit compatibility libraries. Ubuntu doesn't include them by > default, but you can install them, which will enable all manner of > 32-bit Linux binaries to work without a problem. I'm sorry...I > don't know off the top of my head exactly what the name of the > 32-bit ccompatibility package is, but I know for certain that it > exists. > > Sincerely, > > John Fultz > [email protected] <jfultz%40wolfram.com> > > > Is there a 64-bit Windows version? Is there a performance increase > > associated with moving to 64-bit? > > > > > > > > -- Sent from my Palm Pre > > On Aug 14, 2010 8:14 PM, caughran40 > > <[email protected]<caughranJim%40gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > The debian package at http://quackle.poslfit.com/ won't install under > > Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit. "Wrong version," it says. Is this just a question of > > recompiling? > > > > > > > > The windows package does install under Win7 64-bit, which runs in a > > virtual machine under Ubuntu, so I'm not totally deprived. > > > > > > > > Jim Caughran > > > > caughranjim at gmail com > > >
