Mike C wrote:

> "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>> Okay, google doesn't seem to be able to give me any clear advice on this
>> one, so I'll ask you guys:
>>
>> I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has
>> 32-bit windows installed, so I'm thinking about doing a dual-boot with
>> linux and using the 64-bit version of pov. I've already run a 32-bit test
>> and my laptop's almost as fast as my desktop machine, so I assume it will
>> be faster in 64-bit. Anyway what I want to know is this:
>>
>> 1/ what version of linux should I get?
> 
> Just so you know - "standard" Linux (for i386 (a.k.a. IA-32)) will be
> 32-bit
> Linux, just like your Windows.  For Linux on 64-bit, you'll need a
> variant, e.g. a *SPECIAL* Linux for the so-called "IA-64" architechture
> (which means 64-bit processors).

What's so "special" about 64bit Linux?
> 
> (That said, you'd also need a "special" Linux if you're using it on a mac.
> It's possible to run many linux apps on powerpc. :)
> 
There are Linuxes for anything from a pocket watch to a "Blue Gene" super
computer. I personally run it on a cellphone, a PDA, my notebook, my
desktop computer and a cluster dedicated to Povray. And yes, my firewall,
file server,mail server and web/ftp/news server run Linux.


> I suggest the 64-bit (IA-64) version of Ubuntu, but it's really a matter
> of
> style.  Do you know anything about linux?  What do you want to get done
> (e.g. apart from POV-Ray)?  What do you need in your OS?  Editor? Web
> browsing? Multimedia? etc?

All are available in just about all distro's and in various flavors

> 
> Second preference would be Debian; as for the rest, I've heard that the
> packaging system can be troublesome, so use whatever works.  Also note
> that not all of the Linux distributions have 64-bit versions (it's
> possible, not
> everyone will make one though).  You might want to try one of those odd
> Linux-distro-chooser surveys.
> 
> Also, a good many things are ... more complex in Linux.  More powerful
> too,
> but more complex anyways.  And if it doesn't work from the get-go, chances
> are, setting it up will be a pain or next-to impossible unless you can
> code the device driver yourself.

You're way off the mark. Allmost everything works under Linux and if it
doesn't today it will next week.

> 
> Techincally Linux is just the kernel, all the apps run on it (e.g. X
> Windows System, Gnome/KDE/TWM/etc/, your app, pov-ray etc. etc.), although
> the
> generalization is there.  *shrugs*  Usually people don't really care
> though about that.
> 
>> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system?
>> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)
> 
> A lot - but there is no official 64-bit Linux POV-Ray binary, and the
> native compiler for Linux isn't as efficient as the official POV-Ray
> binary's compiler 

I never knew there's a compiler specially made for Povray

> (although I imagine that the performance gain from 
> optimizing for
> 64-bit could make up for that).  Also, the Linux version is _command-line_
> so you'll need an external editor (e.g. Kate, QTPovEditor, etc.).  Out of
> curiousity, does the POV-Ray team's official Linux binaries use the same
> compiler series as the Windows ones, or is it just Windows binaries that
> use the Intel Compiler?

Using a Windows compiler for Linux binaries? 

> 
> I should also mention that POV-Ray's linux installer is command-line based
> (it's a historical thing; IIRC usually programs are installed from the
> command-line as a "super-user" and there's no graphical desktop - usually
> done for security reasons)

Wrong again, plenty of graphic installer shells available. Every mainstream
distro has at least one and if one doesn't like it, there are others out
there.

> - so you may like Window's graphical installer 
> better.  My experience with graphical Linux installers has been rather
> unsettling, with few exceptions.
> 
> If you can manage, I would recommend using 64-bit Windows and official
> POV-Ray Binaries.  If you still _want_ to try Linux, investigate the
> concept known as creating a "Dual-Boot" system (I believe most decent
> Linux distributions are designed for this from the get-go now) and then
> you can "have the best of both worlds".
> 
> Just as a note, I write this from Linux on a dual-boot system with Windows
> XP. :)  32-bit though. *sigh*  I still keep XP for a couple of things -
> Linux doesn't do quite everything I need in a OS.
> 
You must be needing "very" special things then. I installed Linux about 8
years ago and finally removed Windows about 5 years ago. I can do
everything I need done on Linux.

> -- Michael C.

Oh boy, you're so far of the mark, it hurts my brain

-- 
Ger

Post a reply to this message