Amiga vs PC

[fishy_fiz]

Actually Pixar use a combination of Windows, Mac, and Linux. A quick glance around thier website shows that. The link provided is more than 7 years old. Linux is probably the least prominent of the OSes they use if thier website is any indication.

[the_leander]

Linux is probably the least prominent of the OSes they use if thier website is any indication.

Least prominent maybe, but probably the most numerous in terms of the number of units running it in their render farms.

All of the software they use that does the donkey work seems to support Linux, with the media creation stuff being left to Mac and Windows, which really isn't all that surprising.

[runequester]

Actually Pixar use a combination of Windows, Mac, and Linux. A quick glance around thier website shows that. The link provided is more than 7 years old. Linux is probably the least prominent of the OSes they use if thier website is any indication.

Im poking around their website and Im not seeing anything specific about OS use. Care to link what you found ?


http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?host=pixar.com&x=0&y=0
As an aside, they are of course running their server on linux

[stefcep2]

In short, if you have 64-bit hardware, which let's face it, every new desktop/server PC in the last 5 years (at least) has, using a 32-bit OS is pretty pointless. Even without more than 4GB total memory installed, 64-bit optimised code is usually a better fit for the hardware.

"some some questions that were asked over time regarding 64-bit, which I have included below.

1) Does more bits mean better performance?

Answer: Depends. What is the machine used for. How was the program in question coded. The one thing that is said most often (Do not expect some of your applications to run any faster than they do on your 32-bit systems.) Examples: your web browser will still be limited by your Internet connection speed, and your word processing program speed will still be tied to how fast you can type, etc.

2) Should I upgrade now, or sit on the fence?

Answer: Again, it depends. In some cases users are advised not to, if their systems are working as they need, however. The end user will always have to decide for themselves based on current, and possible future needs.

3) My workstation is used primarily for office productivity software, e-mail, etc?

Answer: You will probably not need the scalability of 64-bit any time soon, however. If your system has 4-8 GB of ram or more you might want to look into installing a 64-bit OS so you can make use of that memory. Even having 4-8 GB might still not necessitate a move to 64-bit, as you can also make use of a PAE enable Kernel on a 32-bit install, if you want the ability to address more ram.

Some other possible reasons to research a move to 64-bit.

1) All your hardware, and software needs are supported.

2) You need to run memory-intensive applications such as graphics, CAD, video editing, or other programs that will benefit from the larger memory allocation offered by 64-bit systems.

Some possible reasons for not moving to 64-bit.

1) Everything you use under 32-bit works without issue, and you find having to put a bit more work into making some items function is not a path you want to travel.

2) You have programs that you use that are outside of the Ubuntu repositories, that are available as 32-bit only, and you do not feel like compiling them, or just cannot seem to make work under 64-bit.

3) You have hardware / peripherals that are not yet supported for some odd reason under 64-bit.

Side Note: To make full use of 64-bit you will need native 64-bit applications, and this is where the problem starts for some users. Some programs a user might make use of may not provide native 64-bit applications (Note there is now a 64-bit version of flash, Java, and there appears to be a 64-bit version of Skype.)

After reading through the above. you find making the move worth a try, please proceed to the below sections.
---------------------------------------------
Beginning the move testing, and research to see if 64-bit is the path for you. The tactic suggested is running a dual-boot configuration of 32-bit, and 64-bit. As this will allow you to research, and test your hardware, and software configuration, While maintaining a fall back if 64-bit is not for you, it is also suggested that testing is done for thirty or more days to find out if running 64-bit fits your needs."

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765428

i think thats a more sensible and balanced view of where 64-bit sits in the Linux world anyway.

I did try encoding and decoding video in Ubuntu 64 bit about 12 months ago (?) on my AMD X2-5000 and the speed difference was negligible ( using 32 bit and 64 bit versions of the codecs).  I have no intention in moving to 64 bit as I see no advantage for me, but there always looms the spectre of incompatibility.

Anyway when home users start saying things like they need 8 cores and 16 GB ram, the PC industry upgrade con is complete.

[fishy_fiz]

@runequester

There's links on pretty much every bit of software they mention using/developing that has a "tech specs" link.

[amigaksi]

(psst, Karlos, all my 32 bit games work under Win7 x64, please don't tell amigaski that his head will explode)

Looks like you missed first half of the argument like he did (or purposely misinterpret it so you can blurt out some nonsense).  I already cited two examples -- all of my software is internally 32-bit and doesn't run on 64-bit OSes.  Photoshop for Win 3.x that cost me $700 doesn't run on 64-bit Windows OS.

[fishy_fiz]

"Anyway when home users start saying things like they need 8 cores and 16 GB ram, the PC industry upgrade con is complete.

Depends on a users needs/wants. Many people these days use virtualisation to run multiple OSes concurrently. A lot of users also are interested in 3d rendering (as has always been the case) and other image processing. Although Im not a fan, I do have to use it sometimes, and something like Photoshop can use use gigs of memory alone when dealing with multiple hires textures over many layers. Real time sound processing can also be resource hungry when working with high quality sound. Then there's the more obvious ones like gaming which can use as many resources as a user can throw at it.... so back to your quote, need, no, take advantage of, absolutely. Also your link is 2 1/2 years old, 64bit computing is somewhat more mature these days. As for your references to the athlon x2 5000+, many people would consider that obsolete these days and it's hardly the best machine to test extreme scenarios with (32bit vs. 64bit). I understand what you're saying, and for some people you have a point, however for some your ideas are way off base.

[amigaksi]

No, the person who is really stupid is the one that thinks a 64-bit OS is incapable of running 32-bit applications and offers no benefit over a 32-bit OS.
...

Is that what I wrote?  I said and "16-bit and 32-bit" and if you followed the context you know exactly what I meant.

You obviously know very little about how x86_64 is implemented.

That's your speculation.  I can run all of my stuff in 64MB of RAM -- don't need 4GB+ of addressing space.  Anyway, given your misunderstanding, I'll just dismiss your insult.  

I don't need to know the benefits of 64-bit OSes if compatibility is sacrificed for hundreds of utilities and software that I use daily.  As far as games go, I play games on old machines like Amiga and Ataris.  64-bit OSes are more bloated than 32-bit OSes.

[LoadWB]

Even having 4-8 GB might still not necessitate a move to 64-bit, as you can also make use of a PAE enable Kernel on a 32-bit install, if you want the ability to address more ram.

Yes and no.  I cannot speak for other operating systems, but Windows, in particular, and Solaris 8 x86 only supports 4GB on the 32-bit kernels.  Sun had a really damned good document (I believe written by Casper Dik) which discussed the 4GB memory hole.  Mark Russinovich from SysInternals (now part of Microsoft) discussed this 4GB and PAE issue in a Technet document as well.  The short for Windows was that with the release of Windows XP, PAE-capable systems would see 4GB of memory using PAE and the 36-bit address space to remap RAM under the PCI I/O space above the 4GB barrier of 32-bit addressing.

However, the vast majority of BSODs and crash reports sent to Microsoft (that "Send Report" button really does do something, Virginia) were due to piss poor drivers which could not handle living or addressing above the 32-bit range.  Thus, with the release of either SP1 or SP2, PAE support in XP was eliminated and the maximum RAM available in any system would be 3.25GB or 3.5GB, depending upon PCI address space required and the AGP aperture.  Vista and 7 follow the same rules.  32-bit Server 2003 and 2008 will absolutely support the full 4GB (2008 will actually do more, I believe, in 32-bit

Side Note: To make full use of 64-bit you will need native 64-bit applications, and this is where the problem starts for some users. Some programs a user might make use of may not provide native 64-bit applications (Note there is now a 64-bit version of flash, Java, and there appears to be a 64-bit version of Skype.)

In particular, the Linux 64-bit version of Flash is (at my last check) beta and not officially supported by Adobe.  And there is not one for Windows at all. *sigh*

Beginning the move testing, and research to see if 64-bit is the path for you. The tactic suggested is running a dual-boot configuration of 32-bit, and 64-bit. As this will allow you to research, and test your hardware, and software configuration, While maintaining a fall back if 64-bit is not for you, it is also suggested that testing is done for thirty or more days to find out if running 64-bit fits your needs.

This is precisely what I did when moving from XP to XP x64.  I have not looked back since, though I did have one crappy old invoicing program which refused to run in 64-bit, so I have to run an instance of XP in VirtualBox.  If/when I have to upgrade to Windows 7 I will go 64-bit.  As well, I am pushing 64-bit 7 to all of my customers.  Microsoft did a smart thing with Windows 7: to obtain WHQL certification you must produce 32- and 64-bit drivers.  Thus, a device which says it is Windows 7 ready with the logo and WHQL signing, it will work with your system whether it is 32- or 64-bit.

Irrespective of the operating system, I believe we should have been 64-bit 15 years ago, but Intel was really damned good at flogging their aging 32-bit architecture.  Granted, in some cases a good dual-core 32-bit Intel gave faster benchmarks than AMD's 64-bit procs, but that never meant 32-bit was superior.

Anyway when home users start saying things like they need 8 cores and 16 GB ram, the PC industry upgrade con is complete.

OMFG.  Yeah, I remember a couple coming in to see me in the retail store in 1997.  They were told they needed a 233MMX system (PIIs were either just around the corner or just released, IIRC) with 64MB RAM and what not.  At the time to OS of choice was Windows 98 and 166MMX and 200MMX were more than adequate.  Thinking about the performance versus what they planned to do, I remarked that the computer would be bored between keystrokes and we could save them a couple hundred bucks going with a 166MMX and 32MB.  The machine still purred on a TXPro mobo.  Anyway.

Yeah, I use a quad-core system, but I also do a small amount of video encoding and virtualization.  I would not mind a dual-quad core, but that will come later.  I am building those for customers with CAD or multimedia requirements.  Average office user, we are still doing simple dual-core P4s.

Okay, I feel like a twat throwing in my $.02 this late in the thread, but this post just made me think a little bit.

[vidarh]

The machine has 4GB of RAM and 896MB of video RAM, which just isn't possible in a 32-bit OS 4GB address space (unless the OS supports PAE). Plenty of the applications (read games) I run in Windows are 32-bit, though drivers and codecs are 64-bit.

Generally, the benefits are that 64-bit optimised code runs faster on the CPU than legacy x86 code does (there are a few rare exceptions, even in some of my own code), since 64-bit code can make use of 16 64-bit general purpose registers for integer code and at least SSE2 for floating point/vector ops.
Furthermore, 32-bit applications in the 64-bit environment can allocate more physical RAM than they could in a 32-bit one, since on 32-bit, only around 2GB was addressable in total (1GB of address space reserved for OS/hardware space, another 1GB used to map in the video memory.

As an example of the benefits of this: I'm working on a mapping application that runs on Linux. This app frequently have to work on datasets way larger than 2GB, often over 4GB.

For the legacy 32 bit version, which I'm facing out, this code has to seek to a location and do one or more reads to get to specific data.

For the 64 bit version, it just uses mmap() to map the entire data file into memory at once (ca 2GB is really the practical limit for this on 32 bit Linux, regardless of PAE, since PAE only helps with the *total* amount of RAM in the system, not the per-process addressable space), and reads from wherever it wants to, and leaves the OS to optimize the disk IO accordingly (e.g. how many/few bytes are worth reading.

As it turns out, Linux does a pretty good job of that, and in any case not having to do explicit seek()'s and read()'s saves a massive amount by reducing the number of context switches.

[amigaksi]

This is precisely what I did when moving from XP to XP x64.  I have not looked back since, though I did have one crappy old invoicing program which refused to run in 64-bit, so I have to run an instance of XP in VirtualBox.  

Unfortunately, not all old software is crappy like your program may have been.  And VirtualBox doesn't run unless you have some Professional Version of Windows 7 64-bit so haven't seen what restrictions that has when it does run.  Nor can you request people who buy machines with 64-bit OSes to partition their hard drives afterwards.  Many don't even give the original OS Cd with the machines even if they wanted to.  Dropping compatibility with old software (16bit and/or 32-bit) was a mistake.

If/when I have to upgrade to Windows 7 I will go 64-bit.  As well, I am pushing 64-bit 7 to all of my customers.  Microsoft did a smart thing with Windows 7: to obtain WHQL certification you must produce 32- and 64-bit drivers.  Thus, a device which says it is Windows 7 ready with the logo and WHQL signing, it will work with your system whether it is 32- or 64-bit.

That's the other crap pulled of my Microsoft-- certification of software.  I originally thought that was to prevent viruses/spyware but nope.  They give warning and sometimes fail to install perfectly fine usable software.

Irrespective of the operating system, I believe we should have been 64-bit 15 years ago, but Intel was really damned good at flogging their aging 32-bit architecture.  Granted, in some cases a good dual-core 32-bit Intel gave faster benchmarks than AMD's 64-bit procs, but that never meant 32-bit was superior.

Looks like we don't have much in common.  Intel retained compatibility while Microsoft got rid of it.  Intel was always ahead of Microsoft-- when 80286 was 24-bit addressing Microsoft was still using 640K DOSes mainly.  When Intel had 80386, Microsoft was mainly Windows 3.x in segmented mode.  It's a bigger boost going from 16-bit to 32-bit but not so as much going from 32-bit to 64-bit.  That also introduces the 64-bit pointer issues which many high level languages didn't support.  And you can always bank in RAM into the 32-bit space (for the rare apps needing 4GB+ RAM) like they did with EMS and they could have mapped flash drives directly to memory mapped areas and avoid the obsolete hard drives.  You can adapt basically any algorithm to less than 1 or 2 GB of linear RAM.

OMFG.  Yeah, I remember a couple coming in to see me in the retail store in 1997.  They were told they needed a 233MMX system (PIIs were either just around the corner or just released, IIRC) with 64MB RAM and what not.  At the time to OS of choice was Windows 98 and 166MMX and 200MMX were more than adequate.  

It's still adequate to get most jobs done if you don't upgrade the OS which hogs up more and more memory with every upgrade.

[Arkhan]

Anyway when home users start saying things like they need 8 cores and 16 GB ram, the PC industry upgrade con is complete.

Hey, thats what I'm packin for the FF14 release at the end of september.

Gotta be top notch, or its no good.

[Boot_WB]

quit sounding like a ******* * ** *****

Thankyou for proving my point.
There is a certain etiquette in interacting in the forums which it seems you have yet to learn.

and no kidding you have to install Win3.1 to run Win3.1 apps. Your argument is the equivalent of going

THE COMPUTAR SEZ THERE NO OS INSTALLED NOW I CAN'T RUN GOOGLECHROME, THIS IS A POS. I'M GOING BACK TO MY AMIGA.

Actually, I was simply clarifying a point that was going round in circles over several pages. The nub of the arguement was being lost in recrimination, and clarification seemed to be the way to go.

Everyone that says M$ blows, WINDOZE IS SUCK, etc. etc.  is an idiot.  End of story.  Its fine if you think Amiga computers are still the bees knees, but take off your rose tinted glasses and get with the times already.

If you read back through my arguements in this thread you'll find that... err, I haven't made any. Consequently, your ramblings against me are totally inane.

If they (M$) blow so bad explain why any computer you buy has the latest Windows on it.  Explain why most corporations use Windows and other M$ stuff.  I think the majority of the haters had a PEBKAC issue they were too dense to solve, and decided the entire thing was worthless.

Explain why M$'s Xbox 360 is a pretty massive success and the first console to easily allow homebrew development on?

If omgLINUX was packaged on every PC at BestBuy, IT would be what is most targeted for bullshit spyware/nonsense.  Why would spyware people want to target the minority.  That's why your Amigas don't get viruses when you go on the googlemachine.  The world at large doesn't give a damn about them anymore.

The times have changed, everything has evolved, Commodore/Amiga dropped the ball and lost.  Now there are sleeker, better, faster things to do your computing on.  Amiga's are nice nostalgia trips, and still nice to play games on if thats your thing, but they can't compete with modern hardware.  Do you think Pixar is using Amiga's? No.  

Nasa? Nope.

If all you're doing on the modern computer is jacking off on facebook, whatever.  Go for it.   It may be mundane to alot of people who do more intense stuff........ but you still can't do it on an Amiga.

Still not relevant, see above.

However I believe that for my main computer use (FEA) a 64-bit system (rather than 32-bit) would actually slow down my solve times, due to the iterative addressing of a matrix of several hundred thousand/millions of simultaneous equations (overhead of translating 64-bit addresses vs 32-bit).
Obviously, in the case where the matrix exceeded the available physical memory in a 32-bit system, a 64-bit system would be better (still quicker than paging).

I would also not be surprised if this were the case for large renders, but that is not something I am currently working on (although I'm looking at expanding into this overlapping field in the near future as an additional tool in the kit)..

Enjoy your games...

[Boot_WB]

Hey, thats what I'm packin for the FF14 release at the end of september.

Gotta be top notch, or its no good.

Ahh, consumerism 101.

Enjoy your life contributing to the landfills of this world.

[Karlos]

However I believe that for my main computer use (FEA) a 64-bit system (rather than 32-bit) would actually slow down my solve times, due to the iterative addressing of a matrix of several hundred thousand/millions of simultaneous equations (overhead of translating 64-bit addresses vs 32-bit).

Have you investigated GPGPU for this class of problem? Finite Element Analysis is  one of the areas there are several CUDA precedents for.

[Arkhan]

Thankyou for proving my point.
There is a certain etiquette in interacting in the forums which it seems you have yet to learn.

What etiquette is that?  Don't tell it like it is?  I treat forums like I treat outside.  I don't talk like I'm sitting on a throne in a castle. ********  Whoopeedoo.  If you can't handle being talked to harshly, how do you survive the real world?  Earmuffs?  

If you read back through my arguements in this thread you'll find that... err, I haven't made any. Consequently, your ramblings against me are totally inane.

They weren't all directed at you.

Ahh, consumerism 101.
Enjoy your life contributing to the landfills of this world.

*********

*********