Re: silug: AMD 64 3400+ processor

["Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 14:29, bentley.rhodes wrote:
> if the 64-bit processor is worth it.  not that it 
> would do me any good with what i use my computer for, but maybe it would 
> if i switched over to windowsXP again and started playing games.

XP/64-bit Edition is _slower_.

It's a long story, but it has to do with the lack of portability of
Win32, and their WoW (Windows on Windows) subsystem (for those of us
around in the NT3.1/3.5 days, yes, this is the _exact_ same solution as
before).  In other words, even the 64-bit version of Unreal Tournament
2004 running on the 64-bit version of NT5.1 (XP/64) still makes 32-bit
calls through this translation layer.

The benchmarks are rather appauling versus the Linux/x86-64 version, let
alone even the 32-bit Windows version.  Linux/x86-64 distros ship with
almost entirely native 64-bit libraries (/lib64), although a few
programs are still 32-bit for various reasons (e.g., Mozilla/Firefox so
it can use 32-bit shared object (so) plug-ins).


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith@ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.




-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.