Architectural USA

pentium3000 (December 21st, 2008 @ 5:10 am)

WHAT IS THIS?

phileasfogg07 (December 17th, 2008 @ 9:26 pm)

thenduk: no 'emulation'?? And... what happens when 32-bit application falls in memory space that is out of it's '32-bit range'? Or when it asks something from OS using 32-bit pointer?

Me04120 (December 16th, 2008 @ 1:37 am)

It looks like Adobe released a native 64 bit flash plugin for Linux. Anyway the real reason I am posting is because Sun just released a plugin to run native 64 bit java in browsers. So now I only have to wait for Flash and I can switch to 64 bit Firefox. It looks like Adobe is finally listening to what people want.

blakjakau (December 12th, 2008 @ 5:32 am)

No I have a native 64bit browser running a 32bit flash player on a 64bit OS. You didn't indicate a need for a 64bit binary of flash. However, being the browser is 64bit and Linux supports 32bit binaries in kernel (unlike Windows that emulates 32bit) the end product is that I use a 64bit browser (and 64bit most other software) for everything I do. In my experience (with side by side identical boxes) there is no performance loss using 32bit binaries in 64bit Linux. Windows? I couldn't care less

Me04120 (December 12th, 2008 @ 5:23 am)

You have a native 64 bit browser running native 64 bit flash plugin? Anyway as far as 64 bit goes for video codecs and stuff there is about a 10% gain and Photoshop according to Adobe is about 14% faster in a 64 bit build. When you run 32 bit apps on windows, it emulates them using the Windows-on-Windows and its slower to run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS, compared to 32 bit apps on a 32 bit OS. Look it up, until then everyone can seriously fuck off.

blakjakau (December 10th, 2008 @ 10:54 pm)

@Me04120, there are a few 64bit browsers that can run flash, not sure what platform you're using, but I'm using firefox3, 64bit on my ubuntu 7.10 system at work, and my ubuntu 8.041 and 8.10 systems at home and running flash.

C7B27D7B4 (December 1st, 2008 @ 2:37 am)

we need more, better browsers; we don't need one big browser that everyone uses---we had that with ie and it didn't work; diversity and cooperation are what we need; any sensible attempts to speed up js are welcome :-)

akbg (November 29th, 2008 @ 3:26 am)

Well, please, instead of repeat "RTFM" can you tell me where (do you think) I'm wrong?

thenduk (November 29th, 2008 @ 3:22 am)

You're a joke. Seriously, wikipedia.

akbg (November 28th, 2008 @ 11:15 pm)

Well, if you run a 32-bit application on top of a 64-bit processor you can't utilise all the added registers included in x86-64 instruction set, so you're theoretically right but practically slightly wrong. (In fact a 64-bit application can be even slower of a 32-bit one if they make massive use of pointers, because they allocate more RAM and so they provoke more cache and memory faults.)

thenduk (November 25th, 2008 @ 4:46 am)

Eh, no dude. It's not 'only 10 percent faster'... see, 64 bit means that integers are 64 bits long rather than 32... It has exactly nothing to do with 'speed' of any sort. There is no 'emulation' going on, either. I'm not going to continue this discussion, however, since what you need is not a thorough owning from me but instead a trip to wikipedia.

Me04120 (November 25th, 2008 @ 2:41 am)

Fuck you, if everything was 64 bit it would be faster. I have used 64 bit firefox and it blows 32 bit out of the water. Don't bring the bullshit argument that 64 bit only allows more RAM and in reality is it only like 10 percent faster. Running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit version of windows is slow because the emulation is slow. If I had a 32 bit OS on the same computer yeah it wouldn't make much difference, but guess what I don't.