Re: FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- From: Ivan Marsh <annoyed@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:25:06 -0600
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:31:11 +0000, Steve wrote:
Ivan Marsh wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:19:30 +0000, Steve wrote:
Hi,
I have a X86_64 machine. I have installed FC8. But I discovered that
with Mozilla, for instance, some webs, requiered to use some plugins,
like Shokewave-flash. But this extension is not available for 64bits
machine....
this machine will be used for webserver, but also as desktop machine..
is this really reasonable to use a i386 version of FC8 on a 64b
machine ? Is there a real gain to use an 64b version ?
If you absolutely can't live without Flash in your browser you can run
the i386 version of Mozilla/Firefox/etc under your X86_64 installation.
Or you can look into nspluginwrapper.
Really ? I can download and run Mozilla for i386 on an X86-64 bit
machine ????
Yes. Architecture is upstream compatible. You can run 32bit software on a
64bit install but not the other way around. There will be a performance
hit because you're loading and flushing registers that will never be more
than half full... but chances are you won't notice it.
--
I told you this was going to happen.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- From: Steve
- Re: FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- References:
- FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- From: Steve
- Re: FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- From: Ivan Marsh
- Re: FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- From: Steve
- FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- Prev by Date: pxe boot
- Next by Date: Re: pxe boot
- Previous by thread: Re: FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- Next by thread: Re: FC 8 choose : i386 or X86_64 ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
