Re: 64-bit netbooks with Debian linux
Mark Allums put forth on 5/3/2010 11:41 PM:
> On 5/3/2010 11:01 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Mark Allums put forth on 5/3/2010 5:01 PM:
>>
>>> With 64 bits, you will need more memory, so I suggest you look for a
>>> machine that can use 4 GB of memory.
>>
>> A user's application usage patterns dictate how much memory the machine
>> needs, not the width of the CPU registers. The comment above belongs
>> in the
>> winders user world, not here on the debian-user list, where we are
>> assumed
>> to be competent OPs. The reasoning behind your suggestion is totally
>> flawed.
>
> No, 64-bit binaries are larger. This indicates to me that more memory
> is very useful to have.
If wallets were all unlimited, we'd all have all our DIMM slots maxed. I
made the same argument as you quite some time ago in favor of 32bit Linux
for small systems such as netbooks. I was shot down and educated on the
actual memory footprint of the x86-64 binaries, and it turns out they're not
that much larger overall, and not nearly to the size that one should need
4GB RAM on a netbook. Most of them come with 2GB anyway, which should be
more than enough for just about all application mixes, whether one chooses a
64bit OS+apps or 32bit.
> I admit I am just knowledgeable enough to be dangerous, rather than an
> expert, but on this subject I am confident I am correct.
Correct in that one should get 4GB on a netbook due to 64bit binary size?
Or correct that 64bit binaries are (slightly) larger than 32bit binaries?
I'd agree with you on the latter but not on the former. Stating the case of
the former is spreading misinformation. I attempted to shoot it down. It
is simply not correct to recommend 4GB for the reason you stated.
> Please do not try to insult. It is not really useful, and wastes time.
Apologies. It wasn't meant as an insult but as an exclamation point backing
incredulity.
--
Stan
Reply to: