FC5 32 bit or 64 bit

[Gene Heskett]

On Sunday 23 April 2006 14:17, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>| 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

This one is interesting as I'm currently running the windows drivers 
under ndiswrapper, and its working fine.  But I would like to be able 
to junk the ndiswrapper thing if I could.

>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.

I agree, but here is my conundrum:  When I try to install the x86-64 
from the dvd on an HP lappy with an AMD64 Turion in it, the 
installation takes a dump right after formatting the partitions because 
it cannot find setup-2.5.49 on the dvd.  I tried twice, with two 
diferent dvd, on a +R and one a -R.  Now I just looked at the dvd, and 
I was able to unpack and view the contents of this file with mc with no 
problems.

So the $32k question is what happened?  Do I need to add more options to 
the boot line in order for it to work?  I'm currently booting the x86 
install using "irqpoll noapic nopapci pci=assign-busses lapic".

Or is there a way to convert an x86 install to an x86-64 install on the 
fly?  I'd hate to have to redo all the customization I've put into this 
at this late date when I have only about 4 days to do it in.
>| 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.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules.  I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.