Make x86_64 more visible or even the default choice

[drago01]

Hi,

Currently the website focuses on the x86 version of fedora and the
x86_64 version is hidden so unless the user knows that he is searching
for it, he will just download the x86 version.
We should promote the x86_64 as the default choice with a visible link
"For older PCs and Netbooks click *here*" (More information)".

In F11 effort was made to change the default x86 arch from i386 to
i586 to gain extra performance, but benchmarks that I have done back
than have clearly showed that you gain much more from moving moving to
x86_64.
Not only that you have access to more registers MMX, SSE and SSE2 can
be used unconditionally.

Besides this x86_64 allows the use of more memory and memory prices
are dropping significantly lately.  (Desktops running 12GB of RAM is
nothing impossible or overly expensive now).

Please don't let this end up in ix86 vs x86_64 flamewar.
Yes they are cases where x86 is the better choice (when memory and
diskspace are limited, but that exactly is covered by "older hardware
and netbooks")

So please consider changing the default to x86_64.


P.S:
CC me when replying.

[Rahul Sundaram]

drago01 wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  Currently the website focuses on the x86 version of fedora and the
>  x86_64 version is hidden so unless the user knows that he is searching
>  for it, he will just download the x86 version.
>  We should promote the x86_64 as the default choice with a visible link
>  "For older PCs and Netbooks click *here*" (More information)".
>  
>  In F11 effort was made to change the default x86 arch from i386 to
>  i586 to gain extra performance, but benchmarks that I have done back
>  than have clearly showed that you gain much more from moving moving to
>  x86_64.
>  Not only that you have access to more registers MMX, SSE and SSE2 can
>  be used unconditionally. 
Can we get a recommendation from FESCo?

Rahul

[Kamisamanou Burgess]

Maybe not the default choice. x86_64 only accounts for about %25 of Fedora
users according to Smolt.

Sayonara,
Kamisamanou Burgess
http://www.kamisamanou.net


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 07:17, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;wrote:

>  drago01 wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > Currently the website focuses on the x86 version of fedora and the
>  > x86_64 version is hidden so unless the user knows that he is searching
>  > for it, he will just download the x86 version.
>  > We should promote the x86_64 as the default choice with a visible link
>  > "For older PCs and Netbooks click *here*" (More information)".
>  >
>  > In F11 effort was made to change the default x86 arch from i386 to
>  > i586 to gain extra performance, but benchmarks that I have done back
>  > than have clearly showed that you gain much more from moving moving to
>  > x86_64.
>  > Not only that you have access to more registers MMX, SSE and SSE2 can
>  > be used unconditionally.
>
>  Can we get a recommendation from FESCo?
>
>  Rahul
>
>  --
>  Fedora-websites-list mailing list
>
> [e-mail]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=[e-mail]>
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
>

[Rahul Sundaram]

Kamisamanou Burgess wrote:
>  Maybe not the default choice. x86_64 only accounts for about %25 of
>  Fedora users according to Smolt. 
The current choices do not always indicate future direction. The
question is what do we want to push towards? It isn't clear to me that
x86_64 has clear cut advantages over x86 for regular desktop users. I
rather get FESCo to answer that.

Rahul

[drago01]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Kamisamanou Burgess
<kamisamanou(a)kamisamanou.net&gt; wrote:
>  Maybe not the default choice. x86_64 only accounts for about %25 of
> Fedora
>  users according to Smolt. 
Well if you hide it most users will just download the x86 version
(that's what has always been the case, which results into this smolt
stats).

[Rahul Sundaram]

drago01 wrote:
>  On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Kamisamanou Burgess
>  <kamisamanou(a)kamisamanou.net&gt; wrote:
> > Maybe not the default choice. x86_64 only accounts for about %25 of Fedora
> > users according to Smolt.
>  
>  Well if you hide it most users will just download the x86 version
>  (that's what has always been the case, which results into this smolt
>  stats). 
It has not been always the case. We didn't have a single choice before
but multiple links which is now what you get when you click on get all
download option.

Rahul

[Kamisamanou Burgess]

I had actually considered the idea that since clicking on download does
provide the i686 would skew those statistics, but those who don't know what
they are looking for, aren't likely to have a reason to use the other 64bits
of there system. If they want it, they know it.

Sayonara,
Kamisamanou Burgess
http://www.kamisamanou.net


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:05, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Kamisamanou Burgess
>
> <[e-mail]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=[e-mail]>>
>  wrote:
>  > Maybe not the default choice. x86_64 only accounts for about %25 of
>  Fedora
>  > users according to Smolt.
>
>  Well if you hide it most users will just download the x86 version
>  (that's what has always been the case, which results into this smolt
>  stats).
>

[drago01]

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Kamisamanou Burgess
<kamisamanou(a)kamisamanou.net&gt; wrote:
>  I had actually considered the idea that since clicking on download
> does
>  provide the i686 would skew those statistics, but those who don't know what
>  they are looking for, aren't likely to have a reason to use the other 64bits
>  of there system. If they want it, they know it. 
Most user don't know what they want they just want to install Fedora.
It's our job to let them download the version that utilizes there
hardware better (and on most modern systems that is x86_64).

There is no reason to not use x86_64 on a system that supports it.

Most of the comments to this should be answered by this:
http://www.amd64.org/fileadmin/user_upload/pub/64bit_Linux-Myths_and_Fact...

[drago01]

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  Currently the website focuses on the x86 version of fedora and the
>  x86_64 version is hidden so unless the user knows that he is searching
>  for it, he will just download the x86 version.
>  We should promote the x86_64 as the default choice with a visible link
>  "For older PCs and Netbooks click *here*" (More information)".
>
>  In F11 effort was made to change the default x86 arch from i386 to
>  i586 to gain extra performance, but benchmarks that I have done back
>  than have clearly showed that you gain much more from moving moving to
>  x86_64.
>  Not only that you have access to more registers MMX, SSE and SSE2 can
>  be used unconditionally.
>
>  Besides this x86_64 allows the use of more memory and memory prices
>  are dropping significantly lately.  (Desktops running 12GB of RAM is
>  nothing impossible or overly expensive now).
>
>  Please don't let this end up in ix86 vs x86_64 flamewar.
>  Yes they are cases where x86 is the better choice (when memory and
>  diskspace are limited, but that exactly is covered by "older hardware
>  and netbooks")
>
>  So please consider changing the default to x86_64.
>
>
>  P.S:
>  CC me when replying.
>  
Any comment from the website team?

[Kamisamanou Burgess]

Do you mean FESCo?

Sayonara,
Kamisamanou Burgess
http://www.kamisamanou.net


On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 04:56, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:51 PM, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > Currently the website focuses on the x86 version of fedora and the
>  > x86_64 version is hidden so unless the user knows that he is searching
>  > for it, he will just download the x86 version.
>  > We should promote the x86_64 as the default choice with a visible link
>  > "For older PCs and Netbooks click *here*" (More information)".
>  >
>  > In F11 effort was made to change the default x86 arch from i386 to
>  > i586 to gain extra performance, but benchmarks that I have done back
>  > than have clearly showed that you gain much more from moving moving to
>  > x86_64.
>  > Not only that you have access to more registers MMX, SSE and SSE2 can
>  > be used unconditionally.
>  >
>  > Besides this x86_64 allows the use of more memory and memory prices
>  > are dropping significantly lately.  (Desktops running 12GB of RAM is
>  > nothing impossible or overly expensive now).
>  >
>  > Please don't let this end up in ix86 vs x86_64 flamewar.
>  > Yes they are cases where x86 is the better choice (when memory and
>  > diskspace are limited, but that exactly is covered by "older hardware
>  > and netbooks")
>  >
>  > So please consider changing the default to x86_64.
>  >
>  >
>  > P.S:
>  > CC me when replying.
>  >
>
>  Any comment from the website team?
>
>  --
>  Fedora-websites-list mailing list
>  Fedora-websites-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
>

[drago01]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Kamisamanou Burgess
<kamisamanou(a)kamisamanou.net&gt; wrote:
>  Do you mean FESCo? 
whoever decides this

[Kamisamanou Burgess]

That would probably be FESCo, since Rahul has went to fetch them. As far as
websites is concerned, I appear to be the only one who has bothered to say
anything.

Sayonara,
Kamisamanou Burgess
http://www.kamisamanou.net


On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 09:35, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Kamisamanou Burgess
>
> <[e-mail]<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=[e-mail]>>
>  wrote:
>  > Do you mean FESCo?
>
>  whoever decides this
>

[drago01]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Kamisamanou Burgess
<kamisamanou(a)kamisamanou.net&gt; wrote:
>  That would probably be FESCo, since Rahul has went to fetch them. As
> far as
>  websites is concerned, I appear to be the only one who has bothered to say
>  anything. 

OK, so in the FESCo meeting the consens was that we do not want to
clutter the download page with a lot of link but adding a banner on
the right side to make x86_64 more visible is doable.
Any objections to that?

[drago01]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:49 PM, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Kamisamanou Burgess
>  <kamisamanou(a)kamisamanou.net&gt; wrote:
> > That would probably be FESCo, since Rahul has went to fetch them. As far as
> > websites is concerned, I appear to be the only one who has bothered to say
> > anything.
>
>
>  OK, so in the FESCo meeting the consens was that we do not want to
>  clutter the download page with a lot of link but adding a banner on
>  the right side to make x86_64 more visible is doable.
>  Any objections to that?
>  
ping?

[Ricky Zhou]

On 2009-05-21 07:34:48 PM, drago01 wrote:
>  > OK, so in the FESCo meeting the consens was that we do not want
> to
>  > clutter the download page with a lot of link but adding a banner on
>  > the right side to make x86_64 more visible is doable.
>  > Any objections to that?
>  >
>  
>  ping? 
The next step is to get a git patch to add this page/link to the site.
Are any new contributors interested in working on this, or should I take
a look at this in a bit?

Thanks,
Ricky