Re: FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- From: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:42:56 -0400
On Sunday 23 April 2006 14:17, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo@xxxxxxxxx>
|
| 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.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- From: D. Hugh Redelmeier
- Re: FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- References:
- FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- From: Pushparaj Shetty
- Re: FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- From: Kam Leo
- Re: FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- From: D. Hugh Redelmeier
- FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- Prev by Date: Re: dump/restore and SElinux security context problem
- Next by Date: Re: printer Epson CX3700
- Previous by thread: Re: FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- Next by thread: Re: FC5 32 bit or 64 bit
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
