A question, 32 or 64 bits

[Coldbeer]

Hey all, i want install fedora in my new laptop but i not know if 32 or 64 bits.

My laptop spec is:


Samsung R430

Intel core duo T6600 2.2mhz

2 GB ram

Nvidia Geforce 310M 512 MB

320 GB Hard disk


Can anyone helpe me please?.



Thanks.

[marko]

That processor is 64bit capable:

REF:
http://ark.intel.com/products/37255/...800-MHz-FSB%29

[stevea]

Right, but with <4GB he doesn't need x86_64 nor PAE. There isn't a lot of performance difference for typical users, but the 64bit install uses more disk space and more DRAM. I'd certainly choose 32bit with the small DRAM.

Someday soon you may be able to install an x32 architecture distro that gets much of the x866_64 performance advantage, but uses only 32bit pointers and basic data types.

[Coldbeer]

thanks @marko and @stevea, downloading 32 bits (i386) version now.



PS: the latest 18 alpha https://fedoraproject.org/get-prerelease is usable or try with stable 17?

[DBelton]

I would definitely go with the F17 stable version!

Currently F18 is not a very good one to install. I have found it to be relatively stable once installed, but the install can be a nightmare unless you want to fiddle around with it.

They are going through a complete re-write of the installer, and it definitely is buggy.

[Coldbeer]

Thanks @DBelton, installing fedora 17 32 bits




Enviado desde mi GT-S5830 usando Tapatalk 2

[stevea]

F18 isn't even in beta yet - only stupid ppl expect it to be very functional. There is a difference between,choosing a bruising edge distro and walking into a wood shredder with eyes wide open. NO ONE should use any F18 as of today except experimentally.

There is a substantial (~30%-40% IMNSHO) DRAM savings w/ the 32bit linux, regardless of distro. I would definitely use that on a 2GB dram system. 0.6GB for basics an 1.4GB for Mozilla/firefox

[marko]

I'd still vote for x86_64 since you get twice the general registers in that architecture than x86.

I've looked at the difference in on the disk size of apps in 32bit vs 64bit and it seems pretty small and not worth
not using 64bit

[stevea]

Originally Posted by marko

I'd still vote for x86_64 since you get twice the general registers in that architecture than x86.

I've looked at the difference in on the disk size of apps in 32bit vs 64bit and it seems pretty small and not worth
not using 64bit

He doesn't have to care about disk space w/ 320GB. the big deal is DRAM size of the executable. The data sections, (.data & .bss) are about 2x as large for x86_64. This can add up to 30+% more dram required,

The extra memory accesses for 64bit pointers and ints is generally slower that the extra registers and extra instructions.

Use 32bit now.
Switch to x32 when available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI

[DBelton]

I tend to agree with stevea on this one.

With less than 4GB RAM:
The average user won't see any improvements using 64 bit over 32 bit unless they do a lot of video encoding/decoding, encryption, CAD, or run other big number crunching applications.

Most 3D applications don't see any performance improvement.

And depending upon how tight the memory is, you could actually see a decrease in performance running 64 bit.

One of the big performance improvements, he won't be able to utilize anyway. That is the memory mapped files. With less than 4GB of RAM, the memory mapped files are going to be the same in 32 bit or 64 bit.

Edit:

However, if the plans are to increase the amount of RAM in the system in the very near future, then it would be better to go ahead and install the 64 bit, and it would handle the added RAM automatically when it is installed.

[Coldbeer]

Thanks to all for the tips.

Installed f17 32 bits from DVD and after update "yum update" the system restart with kernel 3.5.3-1.fc17.i686.PAE automatically.
Thanks




Enviado desde mi GT-S5830 usando Tapatalk 2