surely this would not be slower maybe equal to actually or faster ^^
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 07:04:25AM -0800, Rob Lytle wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:00:24 +0100
> Ralph Slooten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Harry Putnam wrote:
> > >
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:00:24 +0100
Ralph Slooten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Harry Putnam wrote:
> > The amd64 faq link posted by Ralph Sooten tells a kind of bleak story
> > as of June 2005 about there being nothing remarkable about 64
> > per
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Harry Putnam wrote:
> The amd64 faq link posted by Ralph Sooten tells a kind of bleak story
> as of June 2005 about there being nothing remarkable about 64
> performance and futher that 32 bit out performs in many areas. It is
> also said that for `de
Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> For the most part, the Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS) side,
> certainly for the commonly used stuff, has long ago been ported, and will
> present little or no issues related to 64-bit.
[...] Snipped lots of good info
> Condensing that
4 matches
Mail list logo
