6:57 a.m.
moving on, i have a roomful of gateway MX7120 laptops (with AMD
64-bit mobile athlon CPU) that i use for linux training and, until
now, i've just wimped out and installed the 32-bit version of fedora
on them for my clients, and that works just fine.
but i figure, why waste all that 64-bit computing power, so is there
any compelling reason to *not* upgrade them all to fedora x86_64 for
those courses? that is, are there any real show-stoppers when it
comes to fedora x86_64 that would make that version unusable?
thanks.
rday
p.s. i'm guessing that, since these things have a broadcom chipset,
wireless is still going to be an issue as it is with fedora i386 but,
in my classrooms, these systems are always hardwired so that's not a
problem for me. at least, not yet.
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================
7:07 a.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
moving on, i have a roomful of gateway MX7120 laptops (with AMD
64-bit mobile athlon CPU) that i use for linux training and, until
now, i've just wimped out and installed the 32-bit version of fedora
on them for my clients, and that works just fine.
but i figure, why waste all that 64-bit computing power, so is there
any compelling reason to *not* upgrade them all to fedora x86_64 for
those courses? that is, are there any real show-stoppers when it
comes to fedora x86_64 that would make that version unusable?
thanks.
rday
p.s. i'm guessing that, since these things have a broadcom chipset,
wireless is still going to be an issue as it is with fedora i386 but,
in my classrooms, these systems are always hardwired so that's not a
problem for me. at least, not yet.
I recently acquired a dual-core HP system and installed 64-bit F7.9x on
it, principally because I may well max it on RAM (its used for running
virtual machines), and then removed all the 32-bit cruft.
It's not given me any problems, but I have seen recent reports of
problems with 64-bit firefox and 32-bit plugins. I've also seen reports
some are resolvable.
_I_ don't rely on it for day-to-day stuff (though I have it trained to
play MP3s and to stream radio from abc.net.au)
If one of your courses has students installing, than give them the
64-bit version and (maybe) enhance their problem-solving skills. It's
experience they will need, work or not.
Might be worth browsing the fedora-test archives.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
2:16 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
moving on, i have a roomful of gateway MX7120 laptops (with AMD
64-bit mobile athlon CPU) that i use for linux training and, until
now, i've just wimped out and installed the 32-bit version of fedora
on them for my clients, and that works just fine.
but i figure, why waste all that 64-bit computing power, so is there
any compelling reason to *not* upgrade them all to fedora x86_64 for
those courses? that is, are there any real show-stoppers when it
comes to fedora x86_64 that would make that version unusable?
thanks.
...
If you are having students compile stuff, then you need to stick to the
lowest common denominator (32bit) or else they cannot use those compiled
programs elsewhere.
Also, plugins are not the only issue. Sun's Java is only 32bit for x86
arches.
Other apps, like Lotus, which are Java dependent will have issues.
Other commercial apps are likely to be 32bit only.
Until MS and intel force the world to go 64bit, ISVs simply aren't
interested.
The same is true for multi-processing, which has been around for decades
and is ignored by ISVs because MS tools ignore it. And there is no
other SDKs besides those that MS provides, is there?
A bit cynical, and I apologize.
I have been a UNIX Systems Admin for 25 years, and much of that has been
on 64bit (All since 1996) platforms. It makes me itch to run Linux on
32 bit platforms, but that is what we have until the inetl/MS crowd get
serious.
Desktop == 32bit -- so say they :(
For ALL servers, I never hesitate to run 64bit Linux because I can
predict what they will be used for, and Oracle, SAP, etc etc were all
written for 64bit platforms and take advantage of them.
Plus, most servers now days will have more than 3GB RAM, which is the
practical limit for 32bit intel/AMD systems.
One last thing/rant. This 32bit issue is so bad it affects in/AMD
marketing. There are lots of Turion models that don't say 64 in the
name that are 64bit, and there are lots of intel core, and core duo CPUs
that are 32bit only. I have one. :(
Good luck!
6:44 p.m.
Phil Meyer wrote:
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> moving on, i have a roomful of gateway MX7120 laptops (with AMD
> 64-bit mobile athlon CPU) that i use for linux training and, until
> now, i've just wimped out and installed the 32-bit version of fedora
> on them for my clients, and that works just fine.
>
> but i figure, why waste all that 64-bit computing power, so is there
> any compelling reason to *not* upgrade them all to fedora x86_64 for
> those courses? that is, are there any real show-stoppers when it
> comes to fedora x86_64 that would make that version unusable?
> thanks.
>
...
If you are having students compile stuff, then you need to stick to the
lowest common denominator (32bit) or else they cannot use those compiled
programs elsewhere.
Also, plugins are not the only issue. Sun's Java is only 32bit for x86
arches.
Other apps, like Lotus, which are Java dependent will have issues.
Other commercial apps are likely to be 32bit only.
Until MS and intel force the world to go 64bit, ISVs simply aren't
interested.
The same is true for multi-processing, which has been around for decades
and is ignored by ISVs because MS tools ignore it. And there is no
other SDKs besides those that MS provides, is there?
I have been wondering how well Windows and Linux will exploit the
advantages of the Quads now coming out.
OS/2, were it still around in numbers, should cope pretty well, one of
the programming standards was that if a task might take more than a
certain about of time (and I think that that was .1 second, it was very
short to a human) then it should start a new thread.
Think of printing, do you really want to sit around while Firefox prints
something? I don't.
I use KDE, and there's an enormous amount of stuff that could be run in
parallel and is not, and I really do not like all those progress boxes
that pop up for a second's work.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
2:36 p.m.
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:16:14 -0700
Phil Meyer <pmeyer(a)themeyerfarm.com> wrote:
If you are having students compile stuff, then you need to stick to
the
lowest common denominator (32bit) or else they cannot use those compiled
programs elsewhere.
This is a bit of a niche issue, but it may be important with regard to certain
applications.
You can use DOSEMU (http://www.dosemu.org) to run old (and new) DOS programs on
Linux. I wrote, support and maintain what has become a fair-sized suite of
special-purpose programs for a particular industry. For various reasons, the
programs are written in PowerBASIC/DOS and run on Linux application servers
under DOSEMU.
Linux/x86_64 runs DOS programs under DOSEMU approximately 13 times slower than
they run on Linux/i386. This is not as big of an issue as it may initially
appear, because even 13 times slower on a 3+GHZ computer is faster than
computers were running in back in the days when DOS was king of the hill. For
an interesting description of the reason this happens, I highly recommend
this article:
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-is-x86-64-long-mode-memory-mode...
In short, running i386 Linux allows your CPU to use a “Virtual86” mode, while
x86_64 Linux requires that the whole thing be emulated in software which
obviously takes more horsepower and therefore runs more slowly
My conclusion is that if you want to run the occasional DOS program on Linux,
then x86_64 may be worth using depending on what other native Linux programs
you normally use and require. On the other hand, if you are setting up a server
for the main purpose of running DOS programs on it (like I do) then i386
(32-bit) Linux is the way to go, simply because a 13 times increase in speed is
obviously worth having.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
7:48 p.m.
Frank Cox wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:16:14 -0700
Phil Meyer <pmeyer(a)themeyerfarm.com> wrote:
> If you are having students compile stuff, then you need to stick to the
> lowest common denominator (32bit) or else they cannot use those compiled
> programs elsewhere.
This is a bit of a niche issue, but it may be important with regard to certain
applications.
You can use DOSEMU (http://www.dosemu.org) to run old (and new) DOS programs on
Linux. I wrote, support and maintain what has become a fair-sized suite of
special-purpose programs for a particular industry. For various reasons, the
programs are written in PowerBASIC/DOS and run on Linux application servers
under DOSEMU.
Linux/x86_64 runs DOS programs under DOSEMU approximately 13 times slower than
they run on Linux/i386. This is not as big of an issue as it may initially
appear, because even 13 times slower on a 3+GHZ computer is faster than
computers were running in back in the days when DOS was king of the hill. For
an interesting description of the reason this happens, I highly recommend
this article:
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-is-x86-64-long-mode-memory-mode...
In short, running i386 Linux allows your CPU to use a “Virtual86” mode, while
x86_64 Linux requires that the whole thing be emulated in software which
obviously takes more horsepower and therefore runs more slowly
I have always assumed doesemu uses the 386's virtual-8086 mode, and
that's not mentioned in Bryan J Smith's description above.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
5:54 p.m.
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:27:41 -0800 (PST)
"Mr.Scrooge" <maximilian_bianco(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
So is it worth anything for the average user to install 64 bit on a
workstation at this point?
As I said in my previous message in this thread, it depends on what else you're
doing.
I see a substantial (i.e. noticeable) difference in the speed that Scribus can
scroll a complex document on this F8/x86_64 installation, compared to when I
had F7/i386 installed on this same machine. Impositions and RIPs seem to
run a bit faster too.
On the other hand, there isn't much of a difference in a lot of other stuff.
I think you have little to lose by going to x86_64 if you can, with some very
narrow exceptions depending on exactly what you do with your computer.
For the average user doing the average thing, there's probably little to lose
by going with x86_64. There might not be much to be gained either, but
anything is greater than nothing, so why not?
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
1:11 p.m.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
moving on, i have a roomful of gateway MX7120 laptops (with AMD
64-bit mobile athlon CPU) that i use for linux training and, until
now, i've just wimped out and installed the 32-bit version of fedora
on them for my clients, and that works just fine.
but i figure, why waste all that 64-bit computing power, so is there
any compelling reason to *not* upgrade them all to fedora x86_64 for
those courses? that is, are there any real show-stoppers when it
comes to fedora x86_64 that would make that version unusable?
thanks.
Aside from firefox plugins (which aren't much trouble), I've found everything to
be completely smooth. I prefer 64-bit for anything with more than 896 MB of
RAM, just so I don't have to worry about the archaic lowmem/highmem break.
-- Chris
3:27 p.m.
So is it worth anything for the average user to install 64 bit on a workstation at this
point?
Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote: On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:16:14 -0700
Phil Meyer
wrote:
If you are having students compile stuff, then you need to stick to
the
lowest common denominator (32bit) or else they cannot use those compiled
programs elsewhere.
This is a bit of a niche issue, but it may be important with regard to certain
applications.
You can use DOSEMU (http://www.dosemu.org) to run old (and new) DOS programs on
Linux. I wrote, support and maintain what has become a fair-sized suite of
special-purpose programs for a particular industry. For various reasons, the
programs are written in PowerBASIC/DOS and run on Linux application servers
under DOSEMU.
Linux/x86_64 runs DOS programs under DOSEMU approximately 13 times slower than
they run on Linux/i386. This is not as big of an issue as it may initially
appear, because even 13 times slower on a 3+GHZ computer is faster than
computers were running in back in the days when DOS was king of the hill. For
an interesting description of the reason this happens, I highly recommend
this article:
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-is-x86-64-long-mode-memory-mode...
In short, running i386 Linux allows your CPU to use a âVirtual86â mode, while
x86_64 Linux requires that the whole thing be emulated in software which
obviously takes more horsepower and therefore runs more slowly
My conclusion is that if you want to run the occasional DOS program on Linux,
then x86_64 may be worth using depending on what other native Linux programs
you normally use and require. On the other hand, if you are setting up a server
for the main purpose of running DOS programs on it (like I do) then i386
(32-bit) Linux is the way to go, simply because a 13 times increase in speed is
obviously worth having.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
3:19 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 08:30 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, John Summerfield wrote:
> I recently acquired a dual-core HP system and installed 64-bit F7.9x
> on it, principally because I may well max it on RAM (its used for
> running virtual machines), and then removed all the 32-bit cruft.
>
> It's not given me any problems, but I have seen recent reports of
> problems with 64-bit firefox and 32-bit plugins. I've also seen
> reports some are resolvable.
that's the only issue i'm familiar with -- 64-bit firefox with 32-bit
plugins. but if there's nothing more serious than that, that doesn't
worry me. thanks.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================
I run 64-bit firefox on two machines (one AMD the other intel) with
nspluginwrapper to get flash (installed from adobe's site) to work. No
problems so far...
--Tim
____________________________________________________________________
/ Small change can often be found under seat cushions. \
\ -- One of Lazarus Long's most penetrating insights /
--------------------------------------------------------------------
\
\ \
\ /\
( )
.( o ).
7:30 a.m.
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, John Summerfield wrote:
I recently acquired a dual-core HP system and installed 64-bit F7.9x
on it, principally because I may well max it on RAM (its used for
running virtual machines), and then removed all the 32-bit cruft.
It's not given me any problems, but I have seen recent reports of
problems with 64-bit firefox and 32-bit plugins. I've also seen
reports some are resolvable.
that's the only issue i'm familiar with -- 64-bit firefox with 32-bit
plugins. but if there's nothing more serious than that, that doesn't
worry me. thanks.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
========================================================================
5957
days inactive
5963
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Chris Snook -
Frank Cox -
John Summerfield -
Max -
Phil Meyer -
Robert P. J. Day -
Timothy Selivanow