FC5 32 bit or 64 bit

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo at gmail.com>

| 1. The x86_64 drivers are still not as mature (debugged) as the ones
| for the x86_32.  Testing volunteers wanted/needed.

Really?  I've been running x86_64 on my desktop and notebook for
almost two years.  Drivers seem to be fine now.

I don't use ndiswrapper.  My guess is that it might actually work
better in 64-bit mode because of stack size issues (the per-process
kernel stack space is twice as big in x86_64 as on i386; some
ndiswrapper drivers crash into Red Hat's choice of small stack size on
i386).

There has been some recent success in creating a native Linux driver
for Broadcom 802.11g controllers.
  http://bcm43xx.berlios.de
I've not tried it but it would be great to have more users using it
and reporting back to the developers (and even contributing).  Much
better for the Linux ecosystem than using ndiswrapper.

| 2. For the home user there is not a "must have" application or feature
| in x86-64 that makes it compelling to switch.

Agreed.

But maybe soon: RAM may be creeping down in price.  My desktop now has
3G because I saw a deal for 2G at Canadian$125 (after rebates, at
Tiger direct).  If that kind of price becomes normal, the 4G boundary
is going to pinch.

I like diversity of platforms.  It keeps the code honest.  It is also
makes things a little bit harder for the bad guys.

| 3. If you want everything to be 64-bit it will be much later. Because
| of patent issues for multimedia that may be never.

FC5 x86_64 can run i386 userland code.  All that patented/closed
source i386-only crap is in userland.  So you can run it on an x86_64
installation.  Example: on x86_64, if you want to use flash (which
comes as a i386-only browser plugin), you need to use an i386 browser.