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?
2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system? 
(i.e. is it worth the effort?)

Now I realise there's no straight answer to question 1 but I'm getting SO 
annoyed with linux users! Whenever I ask one of the guys at work they always 
name about a dozen versions of linux I should try. It's an OS! I don't want 
to try it, I just want to install one and use it! I'm not scared of having 
to use a command prompt (I use linux remotely from a windows PC at work 
sometimes so I know my way around), I just want someone to tell me what the 
difference is between them.

Can all versions of linux run povray? Can they all run the same programs, 
and if not why not? Do different ones run pov at different speeds? Are there 
special 64-bit versions of linux (like windows) or is it just exposed in a 
more implicit way?

BTW, I've just started using emacs at work, so don't worry about suggesting 
a version of linux that's friendly for windows users, I can handle a steep 
learning curve (I'm going to regret saying that!).

Please help me!

Thanks
-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

Hi Tek:

   I'm sorry, but my answer to 1) should be similar to those you usually
get from these annoying linux users... :) But I think that the effect on
the overall rendering speed shouldn't be noticeable: the  difference
between distros is more about the apps they include and how they are
organized, etc... in that regard, my preferred ones are Fedora and
Ubuntu, but that's very personal. And, IMHO, the "is just an OS"
thinking is not correct: the OS is the main software on your computer,
and you should be very careful choosing it.

   About 2), I don't really know if the official binary is 32 or 64
bits, as I always compile the sources for my own platform. The effort is
so minimal that any advantage is worth. I mean, compiling your own
version for you specific platform is very easy on Linux, and it should
take only a few minutes more than installing the official binary (just
make sure to install the development tools of your Linux distro).

   Regards...

--
Jaime

Post a reply to this message

Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has 
> 32-bit windows installed

  Don't you hate that? All those resources gone to waste...

  (Of course one reason for that is that MS has still not published a
good, stable and well-tested 64-bit version of Windows...)

  I don't actually remember if you can upgrade Windows to 64-bit for
free. You should consult microsoft.com.

> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system? 
> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)

  Unlike many other 32/64-bit systems (such as UltraSparc and Macintosh),
in the AMD 64-bit systems there's an actual speed advantage in running
(optimized) 64-bit binaries compared to 32-bit binaries. This is because
in 64-bit mode the CPU provides more resources for the program to use
for speed (most importantly, more registers).
  If you run a 64-bit binary of POV-Ray in an AMD64 processor, you will
most probably get a rendering speed increase compared to the 32-bit binary
in the same system. (Of course this assumes that the 64-bit binary has been
*optimized* for the 64-bit architecture. That depends on the compiler used.)

  Naturally other advantages (not to be taken lightly) include more usable
memory (no 4GB limit anymore) and possibility of using larger files.

> Now I realise there's no straight answer to question 1 but I'm getting SO 
> annoyed with linux users! Whenever I ask one of the guys at work they always 
> name about a dozen versions of linux I should try. It's an OS! I don't want 
> to try it, I just want to install one and use it!

  I don't have too much experience about different linux distros, but in
your case I would recommend Suse. It has a superb support for hardware
(it was actually the only distro which would work correctly in my more
or less exotic system) and it's easy to use (you can usually use its
package manager yast2, which is quite easy to use, for almost everything).

  All in all, especially if you don't have too new too exotic hardware,
it usually doesn't matter too much which distro you use. I personally
have good experiences about Suse, but you can choose whatever you like.

> Can all versions of linux run povray?

  I can't imagine why they couldn't. Can you?

> Can they all run the same programs, 
> and if not why not?

  I can't think of any reason why they couldn't. The kernel is identical
in all of them and the system tools are the same. The only difference may
be in the default amount of installed libraries, but most distros come
with an easy-to-use package manager which can be used to easily install
(almost) any library which you need.

> Do different ones run pov at different speeds?

  Why would they? The kernel is the same for all of them.

> Are there 
> special 64-bit versions of linux (like windows) or is it just exposed in a 
> more implicit way?

  I assume that most linux distros will detect your system and install the
proper versions of the kernel and system tools automatically (afaik at
least Suse does this).

  If after installation you have doubts, you can try "uname -a" and see
if "64" is mentioned anywhere in the result.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:43917446@news.povray.org...
>  I don't actually remember if you can upgrade Windows to 64-bit for
> free. You should consult microsoft.com.

I wouldn't be asking about linux if win 64 was free :) apparently my CD key 
will work but I still need to get the actual software. I suppose I could ask 
around at work and borrow someone's disk.... hmm.....

Thanks for the suggestions regarding linux, though I'm still very confused. 
Everyone seems to tell me to use whichever one I like best, but how am I 
supposed to know that without installing each one? I mean we're talking OS's 
here it's not trivial to try them out. And even more confusingly, if they're 
all basically the same then why are there so many different ones?! And what 
difference does it make?

Still, I'll look into Suse.

-- 
Tek
http://evilsuperbrain.com


"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:43917446@news.povray.org...
> Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
>> I just bought an 64-bit AMD Turion based laptop, which irritatingly has
>> 32-bit windows installed
>
>  Don't you hate that? All those resources gone to waste...
>
>  (Of course one reason for that is that MS has still not published a
> good, stable and well-tested 64-bit version of Windows...)
>
>  I don't actually remember if you can upgrade Windows to 64-bit for
> free. You should consult microsoft.com.
>
>> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system?
>> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)
>
>  Unlike many other 32/64-bit systems (such as UltraSparc and Macintosh),
> in the AMD 64-bit systems there's an actual speed advantage in running
> (optimized) 64-bit binaries compared to 32-bit binaries. This is because
> in 64-bit mode the CPU provides more resources for the program to use
> for speed (most importantly, more registers).
>  If you run a 64-bit binary of POV-Ray in an AMD64 processor, you will
> most probably get a rendering speed increase compared to the 32-bit binary
> in the same system. (Of course this assumes that the 64-bit binary has 
> been
> *optimized* for the 64-bit architecture. That depends on the compiler 
> used.)
>
>  Naturally other advantages (not to be taken lightly) include more usable
> memory (no 4GB limit anymore) and possibility of using larger files.
>
>> Now I realise there's no straight answer to question 1 but I'm getting SO
>> annoyed with linux users! Whenever I ask one of the guys at work they 
>> always
>> name about a dozen versions of linux I should try. It's an OS! I don't 
>> want
>> to try it, I just want to install one and use it!
>
>  I don't have too much experience about different linux distros, but in
> your case I would recommend Suse. It has a superb support for hardware
> (it was actually the only distro which would work correctly in my more
> or less exotic system) and it's easy to use (you can usually use its
> package manager yast2, which is quite easy to use, for almost everything).
>
>  All in all, especially if you don't have too new too exotic hardware,
> it usually doesn't matter too much which distro you use. I personally
> have good experiences about Suse, but you can choose whatever you like.
>
>> Can all versions of linux run povray?
>
>  I can't imagine why they couldn't. Can you?
>
>> Can they all run the same programs,
>> and if not why not?
>
>  I can't think of any reason why they couldn't. The kernel is identical
> in all of them and the system tools are the same. The only difference may
> be in the default amount of installed libraries, but most distros come
> with an easy-to-use package manager which can be used to easily install
> (almost) any library which you need.
>
>> Do different ones run pov at different speeds?
>
>  Why would they? The kernel is the same for all of them.
>
>> Are there
>> special 64-bit versions of linux (like windows) or is it just exposed in 
>> a
>> more implicit way?
>
>  I assume that most linux distros will detect your system and install the
> proper versions of the kernel and system tools automatically (afaik at
> least Suse does this).
>
>  If after installation you have doubts, you can try "uname -a" and see
> if "64" is mentioned anywhere in the result.
>
> -- 
>                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tek <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions regarding linux, though I'm still very confused. 
> Everyone seems to tell me to use whichever one I like best, but how am I 
> supposed to know that without installing each one?

  The point is that they are not all that different. A regular user would
not even notice a difference (assuming the same window manager is used).
  I recommended Suse because my experiences about its hardware support
have been very positive.

  Reminds me of http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990303

> And even more confusingly, if they're 
> all basically the same then why are there so many different ones?! And what 
> difference does it make?

  The differences are in the details. Most distros have their own
installer, for example, and some of them are easier to use than others,
and some are better at automatically configuring everything correctly
than others. Different distros may have different package management
systems which work on different package formats.
  Some distros are bigger than others and may be oriented at different
types of users. Some distros are more bare-bones while others come
with tons of stuff (some people could call it bloat).

  It's like different cars: They all work with the same type of internal
combustion motor, and they all have (compatible) wheels. However, some
cars look&feel different than others.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> 
> 1/ what version of linux should I get?

Depends of your goals. Easy to install? Hmm, maybe Fedora or Ubuntu.
Easy to keep up to date? I'd guess pretty far every of them today.
Extreme optimization to get the last 0,05% of power to use with no fear
of hard thinking and with no knowledge of the word "easy"? Gentoo, Crux
or Slackware.

> 2/ how much better is 64-bit pov compared to 32-bit on the same system? 
> (i.e. is it worth the effort?)

Haven't tested 32-bit binaries for a loong time, since my Gentoo
compiles pretty far everything from the sources.

> Now I realise there's no straight answer to question 1 but I'm getting SO 
> annoyed with linux users! Whenever I ask one of the guys at work they always 
> name about a dozen versions of linux I should try. It's an OS! I don't want 
> to try it, I just want to install one and use it! I'm not scared of having 
> to use a command prompt (I use linux remotely from a windows PC at work 
> sometimes so I know my way around), I just want someone to tell me what the 
> difference is between them.

The answer depends pretty much of you, while the question really is
"what do you want". Everyone remembers Mr. Morden from Babylon 5 at this
time ;).

And the systems goes much deeper than just a useable shell. If you've
just basically used the unix-shell you've been provided, you'll notice
the difference if you'll go for eg. Gentoo. If you're actually
administrated Linux-system, you should get along with any distribution.

> Can all versions of linux run povray? Can they all run the same programs, 
> and if not why not? Do different ones run pov at different speeds? Are there 
> special 64-bit versions of linux (like windows) or is it just exposed in a 
> more implicit way?

Not all distributions are compiled to be 64-bit yet. AFAIK at least
Gentoo, Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora are providing amd64 -support on some
level.

> BTW, I've just started using emacs at work, so don't worry about suggesting 
> a version of linux that's friendly for windows users, I can handle a steep 
> learning curve (I'm going to regret saying that!).

Well then... http://www.gentoo.org/
But don't say I didn't tell you that's not the easiest-to-install ;).

> Please help me!

We will. Just be patient.

> Thanks


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   The point is that they are not all that different. A regular user would
> not even notice a difference (assuming the same window manager is used).
>   I recommended Suse because my experiences about its hardware support
> have been very positive.
> 
>   Reminds me of http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990303
> 

Have to comment that if he could not see the difference between Debian
and Red Hat back at 1999, he definedly won't see them between Red Hat
and SuSE :).

Mostly the apt-get vs. rpmhell -thingie back then. Nowadays RH (Fedora)
also has it's own top-level package tools AFAIK.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> 
> Now I realise there's no straight answer to question 1 but I'm getting SO 
> annoyed with linux users! Whenever I ask one of the guys at work they always 
> name about a dozen versions of linux I should try. It's an OS! I don't want 
> to try it, I just want to install one and use it! 

Then i'd seriously recommend you not to use Linux.  You should only use 
Linux if:

a) you want to and
b) you are willing to accept the differences in design philosophy.  The 
most important is the freedom of choice for nearly all elements and 
aspects of the system.  This starts with the hardware (Linux runs on 
nearly everything), continues with the large variety of distributions 
and ends with for example the literally hundreds of mail clients you can 
use.

I don't know anyone who started using Linux with these conditions not 
met and who stayed with Linux on the long term.  OTOH i also don't know 
anyone who started with these requirements and who did not stay with Linux.

And Linux is not an OS, Linux is just a kernel.  When you are talking 
about the whole OS you have the choice (and have to choose) between a 
lot of alternatives for every single aspect (for example the GUI: KDE, 
GNOME or various others).

I'm not scared of having
> to use a command prompt (I use linux remotely from a windows PC at work 
> sometimes so I know my way around), I just want someone to tell me what the 
> difference is between them.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Linux+distributions+comparison

BTW if you happen to decide for using Linux i would be interested in 
benchmark results for a Turion system.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> 
>   About 2), I don't really know if the official binary is 32 or 64
> bits, as I always compile the sources for my own platform.

The only official binary currently available is a 32bit one.

> The effort is
> so minimal that any advantage is worth. I mean, compiling your own
> version for you specific platform is very easy on Linux, and it should
> take only a few minutes more than installing the official binary (just
> make sure to install the development tools of your Linux distro).

IIRC the only tools required are gcc and make.  Most distributions 
install those by default.  For building with X Window display you need 
the development packages for the X-Libs.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 31 Oct. 2005)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (Of course one reason for that is that MS has still not published a
> good, stable and well-tested 64-bit version of Windows...)

64-bit CPUs Windows might run on are how new?  Besides, MS has still not 
published a good, stable and well-tested *32-bit* version of Windows...

*ba-dum bum*

(XP is pretty good and stable, but...well-tested?)

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message