To x86_64 or not to x86_64, that is the head scratching question.

[Johann Amin]

This has been a recurring question for me over the past 4~5 years now. 
I've been popping this question every year and the conventional wisdom 
to the question seems to change every year.

5 years ago, AMD was the only x86 64bit capable CPU. Conventional wisdom 
of that time was "Don't bother with x86_64".
4 years ago, Intel Core2 Duo come around. Conventional wisdom of that 
time was "There is not enough 64bit software around. Don't bother with 
x86_64".
2~3 years ago, conventional wisdom was "Most people don't use/have more 
than 2GB~3GB of RAM. Don't bother with x86_64.".
Last years conventional wisdom was, "64bit Drivers & Adobe Flash support 
is lacking. most commercial software & games are still 32bit. Don't 
bother with x86_64 if they are important to you.".

I'm just generalizing things as most if not all the reasons given 
applied back in 2005 itself, but as the years rolled on, problems ceased 
to be relevant or have been addressed.

So I ask my fellow Fedorians, if you were to convert a Windows user 
(fully Linux or dual-boot), hand out a Live-CD/Install media, conduct a 
demo/show on or about Linux today, would you be using the x86_64 edition 
or still play it safe with i[356]86 edition?

A secondary question would be, "Is i[356]86 still relevant with the 
majority of today's hardware?"

I guess we are still following conventional wisdom by using the architecture that most ppl
can use.

Besides, normal user can't really appreciate the difference between 32 or 64 bit
IMO.

I am using 64bit fedora for quite some time and don't have any big problem as of
yet.

-anuar-

Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Johann Amin <johann(a)akiss.com.my&gt;
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:06:05 
To: Fedora Malaysia&lt;malaysian-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;
Subject: [fedora-my] To x86_64 or not to x86_64,
	that is the head scratching question.

This has been a recurring question for me over the past 4~5 years now. 
I've been popping this question every year and the conventional wisdom 
to the question seems to change every year.

5 years ago, AMD was the only x86 64bit capable CPU. Conventional wisdom 
of that time was "Don't bother with x86_64".
4 years ago, Intel Core2 Duo come around. Conventional wisdom of that 
time was "There is not enough 64bit software around. Don't bother with 
x86_64".
2~3 years ago, conventional wisdom was "Most people don't use/have more 
than 2GB~3GB of RAM. Don't bother with x86_64.".
Last years conventional wisdom was, "64bit Drivers & Adobe Flash support 
is lacking. most commercial software & games are still 32bit. Don't 
bother with x86_64 if they are important to you.".

I'm just generalizing things as most if not all the reasons given 
applied back in 2005 itself, but as the years rolled on, problems ceased 
to be relevant or have been addressed.

So I ask my fellow Fedorians, if you were to convert a Windows user 
(fully Linux or dual-boot), hand out a Live-CD/Install media, conduct a 
demo/show on or about Linux today, would you be using the x86_64 edition 
or still play it safe with i[356]86 edition?

A secondary question would be, "Is i[356]86 still relevant with the 
majority of today's hardware?"
_______________________________________________
malaysian-users mailing list
malaysian-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/malaysian-users

[Umarzuki Mochlis]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Johann Amin <johann(a)akiss.com.my&gt; wrote:

>  This has been a recurring question for me over the past 4~5 years
> now.
>  I've been popping this question every year and the conventional wisdom
>  to the question seems to change every year.
>
>  5 years ago, AMD was the only x86 64bit capable CPU. Conventional wisdom
>  of that time was "Don't bother with x86_64".
>  4 years ago, Intel Core2 Duo come around. Conventional wisdom of that
>  time was "There is not enough 64bit software around. Don't bother with
>  x86_64".
>  
there're lots of program and tools for 64-bit nowadays, not to mention that
there is already 32-bit library for campatibility with 64-bit os. Correct me
if i'm wrong but i've been using 64-bit gnu/linux since 2008. Slightly
faster than using 32-bit gnu/linux. I'm not saying which one because that
would be OT


>  2~3 years ago, conventional wisdom was "Most people don't
> use/have more
>  than 2GB~3GB of RAM. Don't bother with x86_64.".
>  
If you have more than 3 GiB, why not?


>  Last years conventional wisdom was, "64bit Drivers & Adobe
> Flash support
>  is lacking. most commercial software & games are still 32bit. Don't
>  bother with x86_64 if they are important to you.".
>
>  
There's a 64-bit flash plugin now


>  I'm just generalizing things as most if not all the reasons
> given
>  applied back in 2005 itself, but as the years rolled on, problems ceased
>  to be relevant or have been addressed.
>
>  So I ask my fellow Fedorians, if you were to convert a Windows user
>  (fully Linux or dual-boot), hand out a Live-CD/Install media, conduct a
>  demo/show on or about Linux today, would you be using the x86_64 edition
>  or still play it safe with i[356]86 edition?
>
>  
never tested 64-bit live cd


>  A secondary question would be, "Is i[356]86 still relevant with
> the
>  majority of today's hardware?"
>  
own opinion; yes. Not everyone is upgrading their computer.


>  _______________________________________________
>  malaysian-users mailing list
>  malaysian-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/malaysian-users
>  


-- 
Regards,

Umarzuki Mochlis
http://debmal.my

[Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan]

For purpose of displaying Fedora and Linux capability to end user, the best
choice for Live CD is using the x86 (i386) version.

This will make sure that the Live CD will always able to be run, not only on
the user hardware, but maybe to his/her relatives or colleagues hardware
when he/she take it home.

It will be frustrating to the end user, that eager to use Linux, but found
out that this particular CD can be used only on x86_64 hardware, which
he/she might not know about it.

But, at the back of his mind, he/she will create a false assumption that
Linux is not good and not usable across different hardware.



On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Johann Amin <johann(a)akiss.com.my&gt; wrote:

>  This has been a recurring question for me over the past 4~5 years
> now.
>  I've been popping this question every year and the conventional wisdom
>  to the question seems to change every year.
>
>  5 years ago, AMD was the only x86 64bit capable CPU. Conventional wisdom
>  of that time was "Don't bother with x86_64".
>  4 years ago, Intel Core2 Duo come around. Conventional wisdom of that
>  time was "There is not enough 64bit software around. Don't bother with
>  x86_64".
>  2~3 years ago, conventional wisdom was "Most people don't use/have more
>  than 2GB~3GB of RAM. Don't bother with x86_64.".
>  Last years conventional wisdom was, "64bit Drivers & Adobe Flash support
>  is lacking. most commercial software & games are still 32bit. Don't
>  bother with x86_64 if they are important to you.".
>
>  I'm just generalizing things as most if not all the reasons given
>  applied back in 2005 itself, but as the years rolled on, problems ceased
>  to be relevant or have been addressed.
>
>  So I ask my fellow Fedorians, if you were to convert a Windows user
>  (fully Linux or dual-boot), hand out a Live-CD/Install media, conduct a
>  demo/show on or about Linux today, would you be using the x86_64 edition
>  or still play it safe with i[356]86 edition?
>
>  A secondary question would be, "Is i[356]86 still relevant with the
>  majority of today's hardware?"
>  _______________________________________________
>  malaysian-users mailing list
>  malaysian-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/malaysian-users
>  


-- 
Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan

[Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan
<szaman(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  For purpose of displaying Fedora and Linux capability to end user,
> the best
>  choice for Live CD is using the x86 (i386) version.
>  
yeap .. for distribution during events, x86 livecds/dvds is the better
choice , though it doesnt hurt to keep some x86_64 livecds/dvds around
..

>  On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Johann Amin <johann(a)akiss.com.my&gt; wrote:
>
> > This has been a recurring question for me over the past 4~5 years now.
> > I've been popping this question every year and the conventional wisdom
> > to the question seems to change every year.
> >
> > 5 years ago, AMD was the only x86 64bit capable CPU. Conventional wisdom
> > of that time was "Don't bother with x86_64".
> > 4 years ago, Intel Core2 Duo come around. Conventional wisdom of that
> > time was "There is not enough 64bit software around. Don't bother with
> > x86_64".
> > 2~3 years ago, conventional wisdom was "Most people don't use/have more
> > than 2GB~3GB of RAM. Don't bother with x86_64.". 
Personally, I usually suggest 64bit if the person have more than 4GB RAM ..

> > Last years conventional wisdom was, "64bit Drivers &
> Adobe Flash support
> > is lacking. most commercial software & games are still 32bit. Don't
> > bother with x86_64 if they are important to you.". 
64bit flash is available now if i'm not mistaken

and in Fedora/RPM based distro, dual arch handling is better than Deb
based distro (due to how RPM based distros handles the files and
filesystem structures and architecture dependency resolution) .. not
quite sure whether the Deb package format does this nowadays or not.

so if the 3rd party application is distributed through rpm, it should
be able to pull the 32bit libraries it need .. those that are
distributed through pre-compiled tarballs, it'll depend on how the
producer package it (eg: bundling 32bit libraries together) and also
the language (eg: java/python/php stuff doesnt care about
architecture)

> >
> > I'm just generalizing things as most if not all the reasons given
> > applied back in 2005 itself, but as the years rolled on, problems ceased
> > to be relevant or have been addressed.
> >
> > So I ask my fellow Fedorians, if you were to convert a Windows user
> > (fully Linux or dual-boot), hand out a Live-CD/Install media, conduct a
> > demo/show on or about Linux today, would you be using the x86_64 edition
> > or still play it safe with i[356]86 edition? 
as said way above .. for ambassadorship, i recommend sticking to x86
due to convenience during events and the fact that it can run in any
machines (including intel macs if i'm not mistaken)

> >
> > A secondary question would be, "Is i[356]86 still relevant with the
> > majority of today's hardware?" 
yes

> > _______________________________________________
> > malaysian-users mailing list
> > malaysian-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/malaysian-users
> >
>
>
>
>  --
>  Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan
>  _______________________________________________
>  malaysian-users mailing list
>  malaysian-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/malaysian-users
>  


-- 
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Bin Ismail / KageSenshi
Inigo Consulting (FOSS/Plone Development, Training & Services)
http://www.inigo-tech.com
Fedora Malaysia Contributor & Ambassador
http://blog.kagesenshi.org
92C2 B295 B40B B3DC 6866  5011 5BD2 584A 8A5D 7331

[Johann Amin]

Based on the replies (4 at the time of writing) I'm seeing, x86 is still 
the architecture of choice based on the rational that it is the common 
denominator between 2 architectures.

On a statistical observation of my own using the assumption that all AMD 
machines over that last 5 years & all Intel machines over the last 3 
years are 64bit capable. 80% of notebooks that I come by are 3 years old 
or less. From the remaining 20% (that are more than 3 year old), I would 
say about 1/10 are AMD. That puts my guesstimate of 64bit capable 
notebooks to about 82% if not more because I believe that there are also 
some Core2-duos in that 20% that I'm not taking into consideration. On 
the desktop front, about 40% of them are 3 years old or less. From the 
remaining 60%, about 1/10 of them are AMD bringing the total up to about 
46%. Based on my limited pool of machines, x86_64 seems to be a majority 
architecture. What are your guesstimate like?

I was trying to look up some statistics of CPU architecture on smolt but 
its just generalized in for a specific vendor i.e. Intel, AMD, IBM, etc. 
A while back, Fedora claimed that the number of i[35]86 machines are too 
few in numbers that it doesn't justify the amount of work supporting 
them and that they are standardizing on just i686 instead. They must be 
getting their number from somewhere. Does anyone know where I can look 
this up?

[Seatux]

I would say offer mostly regular i686 Live CDs at events and have blank
DVDs/CDs ready with x86-64 images on a laptop for anyone who wants them.
What i learned from IIUM's FOSSDay was to also prepare Ubuntu CDs as well in
case Fedora doesn't play nice with some people's hardware.

[ahmad zulkarnain]

it's not so much about the OS doesn't play nice, it's just that Ubunpoo tend
to include proprietary blobs into their builds. plus too many vendors tend
to stick to broadcom chipsets rather than adapting intel/atheros chips which
is proven to be far superior.

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Seatux <seatux86(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  I would say offer mostly regular i686 Live CDs at events and have
> blank
>  DVDs/CDs ready with x86-64 images on a laptop for anyone who wants them.
>  What i learned from IIUM's FOSSDay was to also prepare Ubuntu CDs as well
>  in
>  case Fedora doesn't play nice with some people's hardware.
>  _______________________________________________
>  malaysian-users mailing list
>  malaysian-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/malaysian-users
>  


-- 
Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try. ~ Yoda to Luke Skywalker
<a href="http://getfirefox.com/" title="Get
Firefox - The Browser, Reloaded."><img
src="http://www.mozilla.org/products
/firefox/buttons/header.png" width="305" height="150"
border="0" alt="Get Firefox"></a>

[Mohd Izhar Firdaus Ismail]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:30 PM, ahmad zulkarnain lop ahmad
<sniffit(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  it's not so much about the OS doesn't play nice, it's
> just that Ubunpoo tend
>  to include proprietary blobs into their builds. plus too many vendors tend
>  to stick to broadcom chipsets rather than adapting intel/atheros chips which
>  is proven to be far superior. 
broadcom is proven to be far cheaper ..

what expect from cheap machines? .. cheap hwares ;)



-- 
Mohd Izhar Firdaus Bin Ismail / KageSenshi
Inigo Consulting (FOSS/Plone Development, Training & Services)
http://www.inigo-tech.com
Fedora Malaysia Contributor & Ambassador
http://blog.kagesenshi.org
92C2 B295 B40B B3DC 6866  5011 5BD2 584A 8A5D 7331