On Monday 31 October 2005 12:05 pm, John Abreau wrote:
> I assume Ben meant they won't be designing *new* 32-bit chips. Of course
> they'll still be manufacturing the existing chips for as long as they
> are contractually obligated to.
The Intel roadmap is somewhat difficult to read, but they will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Top reply as I am using the web mail right now...
I sincereley doubt that Intel and AMD will be dropping 32-bit chips
> after next year... In my industry, embedded systems design, Intel
> has already committed a number of their current 32-bit chips as being
> availabl
Top reply as I am using the web mail right now...
I sincereley doubt that Intel and AMD will be dropping 32-bit chips after next
year... In my industry, embedded systems design, Intel has already committed a
number of their current 32-bit chips as being available for at least the next
five yea
On Sunday 30 October 2005 4:57 pm, Ben Scott wrote:
> From what I've read, I'm not sure how accurate that is. AMD64 (and
> Intel's clone of it, EM64T) enable CPU modes which support a native
> address space larger then 32 bits. Not the "32 bit window into a
> larger space" that Intel PAE provi
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
even those who are rude to you, not because
they are kind, but because you are."
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Edwards
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 9:16 PM
To: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
Subject: Re: 64-bit RPM/APT bas
I've been doing a good bit of research into AMD 64 as I'm getting close to
building a Myth-TV system. I'll use Debian's AMD64 arch; right now it's
still not officially released, but it's been around since before the last
release of Debian and will officially be "stable" with the next release
I haven't seen this discussed before, so I figured I would ask.
I've been thinking about putting together a small-form-factor system and
it looks like all the better hardware I see is going 64-bit.
Has anyone used a 64-bit, Intel/AMD system with a package based Linux
distro?
Are there RPMs or o
11 matches
Mail list logo
