On Wednesday 13 February 2008, KH wrote:
> why does
>
> #ls /usr/src/linux/arch/
>
> show
>
> alpha/ blackfin/ h8300/ m32r/ mips/ ppc/
> sh64/ um/ xtensa/
> arm/ cris/ i386/ m68k/ parisc/ s390/
> sparc/ v850/
> avr32/
On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
> oh, and for whatever reason wine performs better under 64 bit OS
> rather than 32. Don't have any other proof then my own experience but
> Diablo LOD runs much smoother once I've rebuilt my system with 64bit
> with the same useflags and ever
Am Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008 schrieb ext KH:
> why does
>
> #ls /usr/src/linux/arch/
>
> show
>
> alpha/ blackfin/ h8300/ m32r/ mips/ ppc/
> sh64/ um/xtensa/
> arm/ cris/ i386/ m68k/ parisc/s390/
> sparc/ v850/
> avr32/ frv/ i
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
This One Time, at Band Camp, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said, On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:20PM +0200:
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
The x86_64 name is used by Red Hat
Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
> On February 12, 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
So, the only good reason to move to amd64 is when you buy a 64 bit
machine
>>> I have 1G RAM and it's a laptop doesn't serve huge databases so I
>>> guess despite if my CPU is 64 or 32 bits, I'll just
On February 12, 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > So, the only good reason to move to amd64 is when you buy a 64 bit
> > > machine
> >
> > I have 1G RAM and it's a laptop doesn't serve huge databases so I
> > guess despite if my CPU is 64 or 32 bits, I'll just stick with the 32
> > version, works gr
This One Time, at Band Camp, Boris Fersing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, On Tue,
Feb 12, 2008 at 03:06:13PM -0500:
> On Feb 12, 2008 8:06 AM, Benjamen R. Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wael Nasreddine wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:31:30PM -0500, "Benjamen R. Meyer" <[EMAIL
> > > PROTE
On Feb 12, 2008 8:06 AM, Benjamen R. Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wael Nasreddine wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:31:30PM -0500, "Benjamen R. Meyer" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> As you have an Intel Core Duo, you should have the EMT64E version -
> >> Intel's version of the A
Wael Nasreddine wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:31:30PM -0500, "Benjamen R. Meyer" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As you have an Intel Core Duo, you should have the EMT64E version -
>> Intel's version of the AMD64 instruction set - thus x86-64 compatible.
>
>> Best place to check is Intel
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
> This One Time, at Band Camp, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said, On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:20PM +0200:
> > On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
> > The x86_64 name is used by Red Hat and other distros. There are all
> >
This One Time, at Band Camp, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, On Tue,
Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:20PM +0200:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
> > Let's say this processor supports 64 bits, what whould I gain from
> > migrating to x86_64 I mean would it be faster??? I've neve
On Tuesday 12 February 2008, Wael Nasreddine wrote:
> Let's say this processor supports 64 bits, what whould I gain from
> migrating to x86_64 I mean would it be faster??? I've never
> owned/worked on a 64bit machine before so excuse my lack of knowledge
>
> :)
Please stop using the x86_64 nomencl
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:31:30PM -0500, "Benjamen R. Meyer" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As you have an Intel Core Duo, you should have the EMT64E version -
> Intel's version of the AMD64 instruction set - thus x86-64 compatible.
> Best place to check is Intel's website - here's what I found:
As you have an Intel Core Duo, you should have the EMT64E version -
Intel's version of the AMD64 instruction set - thus x86-64 compatible.
Best place to check is Intel's website - here's what I found:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sspec=sl9dv
http://developer.intel.com/design/mob
On Feb 11, 2008 10:17 PM, Wael Nasreddine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It's been like 6 months I'm using the arch i686, but today I saw on this
> page[1] something that confused me, saying that I have an x86_64 arch I have a
> Toshiba A135-S4427 with Intel dual core 1.73Ghz here's the ou
Hello,
It's been like 6 months I'm using the arch i686, but today I saw on this
page[1] something that confused me, saying that I have an x86_64 arch I have a
Toshiba A135-S4427 with Intel dual core 1.73Ghz here's the output of
/proc/cpuinfo
CUT
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineI
16 matches
Mail list logo