Re: [gentoo-user] Status of Gentoo

[Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx>]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:06:07 -0700
"Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Dan Farrell <dan@spore.ath.cx>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:00:41 -0700
> >  "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Jamie Dobbs
> >  > <jamie.dobbs@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >  > > I've been away from Gentoo for the last year or so and using
> >  > > Ubuntu but find that I want to return to Gentoo simply because
> >  > > of the level of customization that I can do with it.
> >  >
> >  > Well then, welcome back.
> >  >
> >  > <SNIP>
> >  > >  Also I'm not running at Athlon X2 system, ifs there any _real_
> >  > > advantage to running AMD64 or should I still to x86?
> >  >
> >  > I run an amd64 as my desktop system. It' started as my 3rd
> >  > machine so at the time it was 64-bit for fun. today I just live
> >  > with it. There are some limitations on the 64-bit platform with
> >  > web-based media, but beyond that I find 32 and 64-bit machines
> >  > to be pretty similar in performance. I run old windows games
> >  > under Wine on 64-bit and they work OK. I think Flash and Java
> >  > have been the two larger issues for me over time. A few
> >  > win32codec issues also. However if I wanted to get around those
> >  > I could probably do something in a chroot but I'm not that
> >  > motivated.
> >  >
> >  > If I was building a desktop machine today I wouldn't build
> >  > 64-bit. I see no advantage and a few disadvantages, but either
> >  > way you go you'll probably be fine.
> >
> >  I use a 64 bit myself and have done so ever since I got tired of
> >  running 32bit and wasting half my CPU.  I recommend running a 32bit
> >  firefox, but other than that, there's no real problems here.  Wine
> >  seems to run a little better in 64 bit than I've seen it perform on
> >  other systems but it's hard to be sure.
> >
> >  Anyhow, just wanted to say I switched from 64 to 32 originally, as
> > Mark suggested, and switched back very quickly.  I don't know if
> > the speed really changed, but it made me feel better about myself.
> >
> 
> It's an interesting question and one I've not tried to test. Does an
> AMD64 machine running a 32-bit or 64-bit install run faster or slower
> with one or the other. For all of my everyday work - Gnome, Firefox,
> web browsing, email, MythTV, etc., it's been my assumption that there
> wouldn't be any noticeble difference. 

for all of the above, the cpu probably isn't going to effect you either
way.  Network/Hard disk is likely to be the bottleneck for all of
them.  MythTV uses an SQL backend and should benefit a little from 64
bit - databases are one of the few places that really benefit from
those extra bits, not sure why.  

GIMP also seems to benefit a little, as does encoding pretty much any
media (especially video).  I'd imagine that inkscape and blender, etc.
would also benefit significantly.  But these results aren't tested,
just mildly observed.  

> I run 64-bit but assume I'd run
> at more or less the same speed if I ran 32-bit. I may be wrong. Anyone
> have any measured data? Same machine, two installs?
> 
I never measured anything, but I wouldn't expect to see too much of a
difference.  If you want to waste your processor's registers, go 32
bit.  If you want to jump through hoops to deal with the greater web
community (flash, java, etc) go 64 bit.  Those are the downsides of
each.  

I highly recommend multilib, though I never chroot into a native 32bit
environment.  You'll want to run a few of your programs 32bit,
probably.  But the two get together really well.  
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list