On 10/30/05, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone will correct me if I'm mistaken, but as I understand it x86-64
> is an instruction set addition to IA32. So it's not a 64-bit chip like
> an Alpha, it's a 64-bit chip like a PowerPC. A fundamentally 32-bit
> chip with provisions for
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:27:13 -0500
Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2005, at 20:24, Brian Chabot wrote:
>
> > How backward-compatible are they with 32-bit apps? I know there would
> > be a certain lossin performance, but for instance, would a commercial
> > version of UT200
On Oct 29, 2005, at 20:24, Brian Chabot wrote:
How backward-compatible are they with 32-bit apps? I know there would
be a certain lossin performance, but for instance, would a commercial
version of UT2004 for Linux be able to run on a 64-bit system?
Someone will correct me if I'm mistaken, bu
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:24:01 -0400
Brian Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone used a 64-bit, Intel/AMD system with a package based Linux
> distro?
I think your questions have been answered, but I would like to know if
anyone has actually measured performance. There is a contingent who
l
