PDA

View Full Version : 32 or 64bit



AllanPen
3rd July 2007, 01:59 PM
I will be putting together a new system with an Intel E6420 CPU and wonder if I should install a new FC7 64bit. I've read that there are some issues to contend with and is maybe not worth the bother. Opinions appreciated.

JN4OldSchool
3rd July 2007, 02:07 PM
You just stated my opinion :) However, I have only tried 64 bit in FC5 so I dont know that side of it. The main problems you will encounter are just associated with Firefox. If you ditch the 64 bit version of FF and install the 32 bit version things work fine. Alternatly, I believe I saw a thread just the other day where Leigh123@Linux claims he has installed flash in 64 bit FF? I am not promising this, I didnt really read it, just the impression I got. In any case, other than this you shouldnt have any problems using 64 bit. But what are the advantages? Most 64 bit users are gonna brag that they are so much faster. Hmmm...maybe if you do a LOT of crunching, but for the majority of us home desktops? I dont buy it. I guess in the end it boils down to your experience level and how much you want to play. I would say I am moderate to slightly advanced by now but I wont mess with it till I can see a definite advantage.

Jongi
3rd July 2007, 02:17 PM
My FC6 32 bit v FC6 64 bit experience says for the extra you have to do for the 64 bit version it is really not worth it. Like JN4 above states, I never really saw a speed difference between the two. I also installed mythtv which required mixing livna and atrpms. Let me tell you that was little fun. Yet in my 32 bit install I didn't have issues.

rerushg
3rd July 2007, 02:30 PM
Agree with JN4. I run F7/64 along with 2 other 32 bit distros and for routine desktop stuff there simply is no difference that matters to me. Leigh123 has an excellent thread in the 64 bit forum section and I've used it. It's a great improvement but didn't resolve all my issues. (No discredit to Leigh at all, probably just my own laziness to sift through the minutia.)
I've got F7/32 downloaded and intend to install alongside 64 when I can get to it; just for the comparison.
Generally speaking, if you don't run high-end, professional stuff (graphic rendering, CAD, or navigating NASA to Mars) 32-bit will serve nicely.
If gaming is on your mind you might consider Sabayon, an Italian distro that offers 64 bit and is all about gaming.

AllanPen
3rd July 2007, 02:32 PM
Thank you both. If it's not broke don't fix it. I'm very happy with 32 so won't bother changing.

leigh123linux
3rd July 2007, 02:37 PM
You just stated my opinion :) However, I have only tried 64 bit in FC5 so I dont know that side of it. The main problems you will encounter are just associated with Firefox. If you ditch the 64 bit version of FF and install the 32 bit version things work fine. Alternatly, I believe I saw a thread just the other day where Leigh123@Linux claims he has installed flash in 64 bit FF? I am not promising this, I didnt really read it, just the impression I got. In any case, other than this you shouldnt have any problems using 64 bit. But what are the advantages? Most 64 bit users are gonna brag that they are so much faster. Hmmm...maybe if you do a LOT of crunching, but for the majority of us home desktops? I dont buy it. I guess in the end it boils down to your experience level and how much you want to play. I would say I am moderate to slightly advanced by now but I wont mess with it till I can see a definite advantage.


I haven't installed flash in 64 bit firefox , the guide was for both firefox's with plugins ( I couldn't decide which one to ditch so I kept them both :) )

Also 64 bit support is good ( there are plenty of 64 bit multimedia apps now )

I find some app's slower in 64 bit ( gcc )

ciphermonk
3rd July 2007, 02:44 PM
Other than gnash not currently supporting as many sites as the flash player, I can't any reason to opt for 32 bit over 64. If you have more than 3GB of memory, x86_64 supports that without an issue. I've been running Fedora 7 64 for what'll be 1 week on Thursday and I have all of my devices working along with all of the browser plugins except Java (haven't found any site that I goto that requires it, so I'm not in a rush to get it working). mplayerplug-in and gnash work very well under 64 bit firefox.

AllanPen
3rd July 2007, 03:04 PM
Other than gnash not currently supporting as many sites as the flash player, I can't any reason to opt for 32 bit over 64. If you have more than 3GB of memory, x86_64 supports that without an issue. I've been running Fedora 7 64 for what'll be 1 week on Thursday and I have all of my devices working along with all of the browser plugins except Java (haven't found any site that I goto that requires it, so I'm not in a rush to get it working). mplayerplug-in and gnash work very well under 64 bit firefox.

I will have 2GB RAM and I really need Java (stock tickers). I suppose I can do what I always do when trying out a new distro and that is to use an old hard drive and check it out. If all works ok I'll load it but, if there aren't any significant benefits though what's the point.

ramasees
3rd July 2007, 03:05 PM
i run 64 bit and the only difference is firefox and plugins a simple work around would to just use firefox32 other than that ive experienced no difference

su
yum -y install firefox.i386
yum -y remove firefox.x86_64
i found that if i install 32bit on my amd64 i get the pci bios bug message

ciphermonk
3rd July 2007, 03:10 PM
I do a lot of content ripping, compiling, and virtualization work.. All of those run work better with more memory that the 64 bit architecture allows me to run.

JN4OldSchool
3rd July 2007, 03:10 PM
eh, if you have over 4GB of RAM just install the kernel-PAE. Works fine. I run 4GB on 32 bit with no problems.

leigh123linux
3rd July 2007, 03:27 PM
I do a lot of content ripping, compiling, and virtualization work.. All of those run work better with more memory that the 64 bit architecture allows me to run.

Try this :cool: ( its a rpm )

ciphermonk
3rd July 2007, 04:02 PM
There are performance hits to using PAE? Why do that when x86_64 works better and doesn't have any of the context switch performance issues that you run into when using PAE?

ciphermonk
3rd July 2007, 04:03 PM
Try this :cool: ( its a rpm )

Thanks leigh

JN4OldSchool
3rd July 2007, 04:12 PM
There are performance hits to using PAE? Why do that when x86_64 works better and doesn't have any of the context switch performance issues that you run into when using PAE?

I guess because psuedo-intellectual talk about "performance hits" and nanoseconds of difference in speed simply doesnt impress me. Fedora is a slow Linux distro in the big scheme of things, why run Fedora? Why not optimize Gentoo if that split second speed difference is this important? What DE do you run? KDE, Gnome? I hope not! I run XFCE but even that isnt kosher for true speed. Fluxbox brother!

I dont mean to be antagonistic, I admit this post is a bit of a dig. But I get tired of all this hair splitting. I have a fast X2 processor and 4GB of RAM. I also started computing on a TRS-80 model 3 with 16K of memory and a cassett deck for storage. Believe me, 32 bit is just fine. You cannot show me any relative performance gains that would make it worth the extra hassle. Now, I must admit that every new release I ask around, see where 64 bit stands. I will eventually make that move. Maybe for F8. But I want to see a reason for it before I mess around. For now 32 bit does just fine.

ciphermonk
3rd July 2007, 04:14 PM
Leigh I'm still waiting to see when thy patch it to include dual core support.

ciphermonk
3rd July 2007, 04:34 PM
If what you're doing works for you then I suppose that's all that really matters isn't it :-) x86_64 works well for what I do. There's no need to start attacking desktop environments and bringing up how you were around when the transistor was invented.

From a real world standpoint, running a 64 bit kernel is more efficient than using address extension when accessing more than 3GB or memory. The reasons that people still run i386 don't apply in my case which is why I chose x86_64. I respect your viewpoint, but to say that there aren't any real advantages to going 64 bit simply isn't true.


I guess because psuedo-intellectual talk about "performance hits" and nanoseconds of difference in speed simply doesnt impress me. Fedora is a slow Linux distro in the big scheme of things, why run Fedora? Why not optimize Gentoo if that split second speed difference is this important? What DE do you run? KDE, Gnome? I hope not! I run XFCE but even that isnt kosher for true speed. Fluxbox brother!

I dont mean to be antagonistic, I admit this post is a bit of a dig. But I get tired of all this hair splitting. I have a fast X2 processor and 4GB of RAM. I also started computing on a TRS-80 model 3 with 16K of memory and a cassett deck for storage. Believe me, 32 bit is just fine. You cannot show me any relative performance gains that would make it worth the extra hassle. Now, I must admit that every new release I ask around, see where 64 bit stands. I will eventually make that move. Maybe for F8. But I want to see a reason for it before I mess around. For now 32 bit does just fine.

rerushg
3rd July 2007, 04:35 PM
I dont mean to be antagonistic, I admit this post is a bit of a dig. But I get tired of all this hair splitting.
Just getting grumpy in your old age, I expect. Or is it the drought down there?
I started the same way except it was a Sinclair ZX81. Even used the darn thing to generate machining instructions for complex CNC stuff. Hard punched the instructions into the CNC and off it went. Even today, despite all this 64 bit stuff, the box that actually makes money for me is a 486 running Visual Basic in Win3.1 that I put together to work as a controller for my production equipment.
Frankly, to each his own, but I think people tend to "overbuy" when it comes to hardware. Marketing, gaming, and "having the coolest toys" probably accounts for most of that. This PIII that I'm plunking away on now with FC6 and dial-up works just as well for this stuff as the 64bit/2gig/broadband at home. Indeed, with no graphics and FF's inherent access lag time it's just as fast.
My rule is simple: If it's quicker than me, it's quick enough.

ciphermonk
3rd July 2007, 04:39 PM
Well said..


Just getting grumpy in your old age, I expect. Or is it the drought down there?
I started the same way except it was a Sinclair ZX81. Even used the darn thing to generate machining instructions for complex CNC stuff. Hard punched the instructions into the CNC and off it went. Even today, despite all this 64 bit stuff, the box that actually makes money for me is a 486 running Visual Basic in Win3.1 that I put together to work as a controller for my production equipment.
Frankly, to each his own, but I think people tend to "overbuy" when it comes to hardware. Marketing, gaming, and "having the coolest toys" probably accounts for most of that. This PIII that I'm plunking away on now with FC6 and dial-up works just as well for this stuff as the 64bit/2gig/broadband at home. Indeed, with no graphics and FF's inherent access lag time it's just as fast.
My rule is simple: If it's quicker than me, it's quick enough.

leigh123linux
3rd July 2007, 04:45 PM
Leigh I'm still waiting to see when thy patch it to include dual core support.

Do you know anymore ways to optimize for dual core ?


%packager leigh123@linux
%distribution Fedora Core 7
%vendor leigh123@linux


%_topdir %(echo $HOME)/rpmbuild
%_smp_mflags -j3
%__arch_install_post /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot
%_topdir /home/leigh/data2/rpmbuild

JN4OldSchool
3rd July 2007, 05:00 PM
Just getting grumpy in your old age, I expect. Or is it the drought down there?
I started the same way except it was a Sinclair ZX81. Even used the darn thing to generate machining instructions for complex CNC stuff. Hard punched the instructions into the CNC and off it went. Even today, despite all this 64 bit stuff, the box that actually makes money for me is a 486 running Visual Basic in Win3.1 that I put together to work as a controller for my production equipment.
Frankly, to each his own, but I think people tend to "overbuy" when it comes to hardware. Marketing, gaming, and "having the coolest toys" probably accounts for most of that. This PIII that I'm plunking away on now with FC6 and dial-up works just as well for this stuff as the 64bit/2gig/broadband at home. Indeed, with no graphics and FF's inherent access lag time it's just as fast.
My rule is simple: If it's quicker than me, it's quick enough.

No, I didnt mean to sound grumpy, and I certainly wasnt attacking desktop environments or making an issue out of my age or experience. Simply stating my version of what you said here. I like the hardware I run, it is fast. But i think I have reached that point where it is fast enough for most things. I just am not going to lose any sleep over differences in speed under one second. It simply doesnt matter. If it takes 19 or 22 minutes to burn that DVD is irrelevant to me, it is all the same. I dont burn many DVDs. I suppose if I did it might matter. Anyway, I apologized in that post and I will again. I didnt mean to sound grumpy or antagonistic or anything else. Like you say, use what works.

rerushg
3rd July 2007, 05:12 PM
No, I didnt mean to sound grumpy
My apologies, JN4. My opening comment was a poor attempt at humor.
I agreed with your post 100%, both content and presentation.