Hi all;
I should know but I haven't gotten it clear in my mind. I am going to download Fc8 in the next couple of days and I am not sure whether to go for i386 or x86_64?
I have an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 Dual-Core processor on a ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard on a desktop with a small household LAN . I am not heavy user of data bases etc. I am mainly a SOHO type user, with ordinary one person requirements. I.e. OpenOffice, Firefox etc.
Previously I have been told (maybe here, maybe somewhere else) that I will get better usage as i386 until the applications for x86_64 are in better shape. I have been watching the to-and-fro-ing regarding i386 and x86_64 on this list regarding Fc7 over the last few months.
So, I am just looking for a bit of advice about which would be the most appropriate for me, and people like me, to install; Fc8_i386 or Fc8_x64?
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:59 -0500, William Case wrote:
Hi all;
I should know but I haven't gotten it clear in my mind. I am going to download Fc8 in the next couple of days and I am not sure whether to go for i386 or x86_64?
I have an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 Dual-Core processor on a ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard on a desktop with a small household LAN . I am not heavy user of data bases etc. I am mainly a SOHO type user, with ordinary one person requirements. I.e. OpenOffice, Firefox etc.
Previously I have been told (maybe here, maybe somewhere else) that I will get better usage as i386 until the applications for x86_64 are in better shape. I have been watching the to-and-fro-ing regarding i386 and x86_64 on this list regarding Fc7 over the last few months.
So, I am just looking for a bit of advice about which would be the most appropriate for me, and people like me, to install; Fc8_i386 or Fc8_x64?
Unless you need the memory or extra horsepower that a 64-bit gives you (and it sounds like you really don't), then I'd stick with the 32-bit version. Most of the 64-bit applications are up to snuff, but there's some third-party stuff that's not there yet (e.g. a 64-bit FLASH plugin for Firefox).
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com - - CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com - - - - Linux is like a wigwam...no windows, no gates...and apache inside! - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 09:08 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:59 -0500, William Case wrote:
Hi all;
I should know but I haven't gotten it clear in my mind. I am going to download Fc8 in the next couple of days and I am not sure whether to go for i386 or x86_64?
I have an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 Dual-Core processor on a ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard on a desktop with a small household LAN . I am not heavy user of data bases etc. I am mainly a SOHO type user, with ordinary one person requirements. I.e. OpenOffice, Firefox etc.
Previously I have been told (maybe here, maybe somewhere else) that I will get better usage as i386 until the applications for x86_64 are in better shape. I have been watching the to-and-fro-ing regarding i386 and x86_64 on this list regarding Fc7 over the last few months.
So, I am just looking for a bit of advice about which would be the most appropriate for me, and people like me, to install; Fc8_i386 or Fc8_x64?
Unless you need the memory or extra horsepower that a 64-bit gives you (and it sounds like you really don't), then I'd stick with the 32-bit version. Most of the 64-bit applications are up to snuff, but there's some third-party stuff that's not there yet (e.g. a 64-bit FLASH plugin for Firefox).
---- I've been getting by with nsplugin-wrapper package on F7-x86_64 with my users and no one has been complaining (that allows 32 bit plugins such as flash and acrobat-plugin to work).
Craig
Rick Stevens wrote:
Unless you need the memory or extra horsepower that a 64-bit gives you (and it sounds like you really don't), then I'd stick with the 32-bit version. Most of the 64-bit applications are up to snuff, but there's some third-party stuff that's not there yet (e.g. a 64-bit FLASH plugin for Firefox).
Right but note that there is nspluginwrapper setup by default for x86_64 systems in Fedora 8 so the flash plugin should still work.
Rahul
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:14 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 09:08 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:59 -0500, William Case wrote:
Hi all;
I should know but I haven't gotten it clear in my mind. I am going to download Fc8 in the next couple of days and I am not sure whether to go for i386 or x86_64?
I have an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 Dual-Core processor on a ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard on a desktop with a small household LAN . I am not heavy user of data bases etc. I am mainly a SOHO type user, with ordinary one person requirements. I.e. OpenOffice, Firefox etc.
Previously I have been told (maybe here, maybe somewhere else) that I will get better usage as i386 until the applications for x86_64 are in better shape. I have been watching the to-and-fro-ing regarding i386 and x86_64 on this list regarding Fc7 over the last few months.
So, I am just looking for a bit of advice about which would be the most appropriate for me, and people like me, to install; Fc8_i386 or Fc8_x64?
Unless you need the memory or extra horsepower that a 64-bit gives you (and it sounds like you really don't), then I'd stick with the 32-bit version. Most of the 64-bit applications are up to snuff, but there's some third-party stuff that's not there yet (e.g. a 64-bit FLASH plugin for Firefox).
I've been getting by with nsplugin-wrapper package on F7-x86_64 with my users and no one has been complaining (that allows 32 bit plugins such as flash and acrobat-plugin to work).
Yes, I'm aware of it. It has been problematic at times for me (some plugins badly misbehave under it on some hardware platforms). None the less, it's a stopgap measure, it doesn't always work and I can't recommend it unless you understand what problems may come along with its use.
On the other hand, Adobe's had MORE than adequate time to put a 64-bit plugin out there. We've had 64-bit Linux for how long now? Two years at least. C'mon, gang! Fire up the compilers and let's go!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Principal Engineer rstevens@internap.com - - CDN Systems, Internap, Inc. http://www.internap.com - - - - When all else fails, try reading the instructions. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:14 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 09:08 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:59 -0500, William Case wrote:
Hi all;
I should know but I haven't gotten it clear in my mind. I am going to download Fc8 in the next couple of days and I am not sure whether to go for i386 or x86_64?
I have an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 Dual-Core processor on a ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard on a desktop with a small household LAN . I am not heavy user of data bases etc. I am mainly a SOHO type user, with ordinary one person requirements. I.e. OpenOffice, Firefox etc.
Previously I have been told (maybe here, maybe somewhere else) that I will get better usage as i386 until the applications for x86_64 are in better shape. I have been watching the to-and-fro-ing regarding i386 and x86_64 on this list regarding Fc7 over the last few months.
So, I am just looking for a bit of advice about which would be the most appropriate for me, and people like me, to install; Fc8_i386 or Fc8_x64?
Unless you need the memory or extra horsepower that a 64-bit gives you (and it sounds like you really don't), then I'd stick with the 32-bit version. Most of the 64-bit applications are up to snuff, but there's some third-party stuff that's not there yet (e.g. a 64-bit FLASH plugin for Firefox).
I've been getting by with nsplugin-wrapper package on F7-x86_64 with my users and no one has been complaining (that allows 32 bit plugins such as flash and acrobat-plugin to work).
Yes, I'm aware of it. It has been problematic at times for me (some plugins badly misbehave under it on some hardware platforms). None the less, it's a stopgap measure, it doesn't always work and I can't recommend it unless you understand what problems may come along with its use.
On the other hand, Adobe's had MORE than adequate time to put a 64-bit plugin out there. We've had 64-bit Linux for how long now? Two years at least. C'mon, gang! Fire up the compilers and let's go!
The problem is much deeper than ISVs not porting to 64 bit systems.
1. SUN has been building 64 bit systems for many years. All SUN platforms sold from late 1997 on have been 64 bit. That is 10 years now. Where is the 64 bit Java?
2. Itanium was a bomb (sales wise) and intel and HP are now twice bitten on 64 bit platforms for commodity users.
3. Microsoft has no reason to go to 64 bit platforms and barely pays lip service to it in order to manage large account requirements.
4. AMD's success building a 64bit commodity 686 compatible CPUs is what motivated intel to bolt it onto all current intel CPUs.
5. It is still quite impossible for consumers to recognize 64bit capable CPUs from marketing materials and part numbers for many main line products. Test: Which intel Core Duo models are 64bit capable? Test: Are there AMD Turion models that are 64bit capable that do NOT have 64 in their name?
So with the heart of US based computing services all dragging their heals on 64 bit platforms, ISVs are extremely reluctant to even look at it.
If Microsoft actually did what they said they would do (and what they should have done) and release a 64bit only Vista, then Adobe (and everyone else) would already be there.
So were they really serious about going to 64bit based platforms?
For myself, the actions of a company speak for that company.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Phil Meyer wrote:
The problem is much deeper than ISVs not porting to 64 bit systems.
- SUN has been building 64 bit systems for many years. All SUN platforms
sold from late 1997 on have been 64 bit. That is 10 years now. Where is the 64 bit Java?
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/jre/install-linux-64.html
- Itanium was a bomb (sales wise) and intel and HP are now twice bitten on
64 bit platforms for commodity users.
Almost everything that HP and Intel sell is 64-bit these days. The reason that they do not run 64-bit on most of the machines sold is not capability, but that Windows is still not very stable under 64-bit.
Itanium was a bomb because it took almost forever to compile anything on it and the initial development systems weighed about as much as a VW Bug.
- Microsoft has no reason to go to 64 bit platforms and barely pays lip
service to it in order to manage large account requirements.
They are trying to go to 64-bit. They just don't push it because they know it is not stable.
- AMD's success building a 64bit commodity 686 compatible CPUs is what
motivated intel to bolt it onto all current intel CPUs.
Yep. And it is still a bitch trying to tell from the packaging if it supports 64-bit or not. I don't think Intel marketing can count to 64.
- It is still quite impossible for consumers to recognize 64bit capable CPUs
from marketing materials and part numbers for many main line products. Test: Which intel Core Duo models are 64bit capable? Test: Are there AMD Turion models that are 64bit capable that do NOT have 64 in their name?
Currently sold? I doubt it. It is hard finding anything current that does not support 64 bit. (Using it is a different story.)
So with the heart of US based computing services all dragging their heals on 64 bit platforms, ISVs are extremely reluctant to even look at it.
Unless they run Linux. I have run 64-bit since FC2 and it has worked VERY well. The number of non-64 bit apps I need to run I can count on one hand. (And they run fine on my three year old AMD64 laptop.)
If Microsoft actually did what they said they would do (and what they should have done) and release a 64bit only Vista, then Adobe (and everyone else) would already be there.
They don't do it because people want to run old apps. (Some of which cannot be upgraded since they are no longer supported.) They know that if they ever release a 64-bit only Vista, very few people will use it. They did the same thing with Windows 95 because people still had Windows 3.1 apps they wanted to run. There are still people who want to run old DOS games. (And the funny thing is that the people I know who run them do so on Linux.)
So were they really serious about going to 64bit based platforms?
Yes. They know they have to go there no matter what. 4 gigs is just not enough ram.
For myself, the actions of a company speak for that company.
Just because they cannot do a thing does not mean they do not want to do a thing. It just means they are pretty crappy at it.
Hi and thanks Rahul;
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 22:46 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Rick Stevens wrote:
Unless you need the memory or extra horsepower that a 64-bit gives you (and it sounds like you really don't), then I'd stick with the 32-bit version. Most of the 64-bit applications are up to snuff, but there's some third-party stuff that's not there yet (e.g. a 64-bit FLASH plugin for Firefox).
Right but note that there is nspluginwrapper setup by default for x86_64 systems in Fedora 8 so the flash plugin should still work.
Briefly what do you mean by "there is nspluginwrapper setup by default"? Is it automatically installed? Do I have to yum for it? Or, what?
I am going to go for the Fc8 x86_64. Why else would someone use Fedora if they weren't ready for a little adventure.
William Case wrote on Friday 09 November 2007:
I am going to go for the Fc8 x86_64. Why else would someone use Fedora if they weren't ready for a little adventure.
That's the spirit. ;-)
Fedora is for fun and challenge, CentOS for dull work. :-)
-
Adalbert Prokop -
Alan -
Bill Case -
Craig White -
Phil Meyer -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rick Stevens