32-bit vs 64-bit

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

32-bit vs 64-bit

Jerry Houston
I've been reading with interest the recent threads about 64-bit
installations.  I'm in the process of building a new computer, strictly
to play with Linux on something other than a clapped-out old beater.  
(All the parts will arrive tomorrow from NewEgg.com, so today seems a
little like Christmas eve to me.)

It's not needed for work, or any other purpose other than having fun and
learning more about Linux.  (I work all day writing commercial Windows
business software.)

I'll be using an Athlon dual-core 64-bit chip, 2 GB of dual-channel RAM,
and at least until the recent conversations, I had been planning on
installing the current "stable" 64-bit OpenSuSE distro.

Given the circumstances I've described, would that (a) be a worthwhile
learning experience, (b) appear no different than a 32-bit installation,
(c) be nothing but trouble, or (d) something else?

If (a), I'm looking forward to using my first ever 64-bit computer.  
Otherwise, I'll just install the 32-bit distro, and continue my Linux
education on that.  Thanks in advance for your comments.

Jerry in Bothell, WA
 
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Randall Schulz
Jerry,

On Tuesday 15 May 2007 10:50, Jerry Houston wrote:
> ...
>
> I'll be using an Athlon dual-core 64-bit chip, 2 GB of dual-channel
> RAM, and at least until the recent conversations, I had been planning
> on installing the current "stable" 64-bit OpenSuSE distro.
>
> Given the circumstances I've described, would that (a) be a
> worthwhile learning experience, (b) appear no different than a 32-bit
> installation, (c) be nothing but trouble, or (d) something else?

(a) At least a little, except that...
(b) Is the goal, I believe. The point is have identical capabilities and
features with the addition of more spacious virtual address capacity
limits. But that will be of little consequence with only 2GB of RAM
installed.
(c) I doubt it, but there seem to be a lingering trickle of people with
issues surrounding browser plug-ins.
(d) As always, YMMV...


Since you're explicitly embarking on this as a learning experience, you
could always set up a dual-boot configuration for "compare and
contrast" purposes. I'm really not up on it, but perhaps you could use
Xen or one of the other virtualization systems to have both at once.
Since you've got a dual-core processor, it should perform pretty well,
though 2GB is even more restrictive in a concurrent dual-OS situation.


> ...
>
> Jerry in Bothell, WA


Randall Schulz
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Jerry Houston
Randall R Schulz wrote:
> Since you're explicitly embarking on this as a learning experience, you
> could always set up a dual-boot configuration for "compare and
> contrast" purposes. I'm really not up on it, but perhaps you could use
> Xen or one of the other virtualization systems to have both at once.
> Since you've got a dual-core processor, it should perform pretty well,
> though 2GB is even more restrictive in a concurrent dual-OS situation.
>  

Thanks for your comments, Randall.  The motherboard I'll be using has
room for two RAM modules, and although it supports up to 8 GB in each
(16 GB total), it's not easy to find modules that big.  And even 2 GB
modules are pretty expensive for a toy.

The dual-boot idea is a good one, and one I hadn't thought about.  I
dual-boot Windows XP and Linux on one of my laptops, but it didn't occur
to me to do it with two versions of Linux.  Thanks!

You've gotten me curious about virtualization as well.  I use VirtualPC,
VirtualServer, and various VMware products on XP-Pro and Server 2003,
but never experimented with VM's on Linux. (I've never had Linux running
on a machine with that much horsepower.)  That sounds like an adventure,
too.

Thanks again for the help,

Jerry in Bothell, WA
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Mike-207
In reply to this post by Jerry Houston
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 19:50, Jerry Houston wrote:
Hi Jerry,

> Given the circumstances I've described, would that (a) be a
> worthwhile learning experience, (b) appear no different than a 32-bit
> installation, (c) be nothing but trouble, or (d) something else?
>
> If (a), I'm looking forward to using my first ever 64-bit computer.
> Otherwise, I'll just install the 32-bit distro, and continue my Linux
> education on that.  Thanks in advance for your comments.

Sounds like quite an adventure. As Randall said, you might want to
partition the drive and install both 32 and 64 bit versions to
experiment. On this machine, I originally has SUSE 10 and WinXP.
However after upgrading to the dual opteron machine, XP wouldn't boot.
It would hang and never did boot. So I decided to install 64bit SUSE.
Am I pleased. There were a few niggles like some of the browser
extensions, but for the most part it ran and still runs like a champ.
Eventually I got rid of the 32bit version and now run the 64 bit
exclusively. A few tweaks, and all is well. Programs seem to load in a
flash, and unless there is a power outage it runs and runs.

I actually don't know if I need the 64bit version, but it's been quite
stable so I let it go.

Mike


--
Powered by SuSE 10.0 Kernel 2.6.13 X86_64 KDE 3.4 Kmail 1.8
  8:31pm  up 1 day  3:51,  4 users,  load average: 2.29, 2.41, 2.32
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

M Harris-2
In reply to this post by Jerry Houston
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 13:19, Jerry Houston wrote:
> but it didn't occur
> to me to do it with two versions of Linux.
        Two or more... on a machine that size you also might want in install the
latest Ubuntu 7.04 too.
--
Kind regards,

M Harris     <><
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

gregfreemyer
In reply to this post by Jerry Houston
On 5/15/07, Jerry Houston <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > Since you're explicitly embarking on this as a learning experience, you
> > could always set up a dual-boot configuration for "compare and
> > contrast" purposes. I'm really not up on it, but perhaps you could use
> > Xen or one of the other virtualization systems to have both at once.
> > Since you've got a dual-core processor, it should perform pretty well,
> > though 2GB is even more restrictive in a concurrent dual-OS situation.
> >
>
> Thanks for your comments, Randall.  The motherboard I'll be using has
> room for two RAM modules, and although it supports up to 8 GB in each
> (16 GB total), it's not easy to find modules that big.  And even 2 GB
> modules are pretty expensive for a toy.

I just read an article that RAM prices are starting to drop rapidly,
so con't buy more too quick.

Apparently the big boys (Dell/HP) have been getting ram for $40/GB for
several months but have kept the selling price up in the $100/$120 GB
range.  Possibly because they had a bunch of old inventory they bought
for higher prices.  Regardless retail price is supposedly starting to
reflect the cheaper volume pricing.

Hopefully we will all be able to get cheaper RAM soon.  If retail
drops to $50/GB or something that would be fantastic.

Greg
--
Greg Freemyer
The Norcross Group
Forensics for the 21st Century
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

James Knott
In reply to this post by Jerry Houston
Jerry Houston wrote:

> I've been reading with interest the recent threads about 64-bit
> installations.  I'm in the process of building a new computer,
> strictly to play with Linux on something other than a clapped-out old
> beater.  (All the parts will arrive tomorrow from NewEgg.com, so today
> seems a little like Christmas eve to me.)
> It's not needed for work, or any other purpose other than having fun
> and learning more about Linux.  (I work all day writing commercial
> Windows business software.)
>
> I'll be using an Athlon dual-core 64-bit chip, 2 GB of dual-channel
> RAM, and at least until the recent conversations, I had been planning
> on installing the current "stable" 64-bit OpenSuSE distro.
>
> Given the circumstances I've described, would that (a) be a worthwhile
> learning experience, (b) appear no different than a 32-bit
> installation, (c) be nothing but trouble, or (d) something else?
>
> If (a), I'm looking forward to using my first ever 64-bit computer.  
> Otherwise, I'll just install the 32-bit distro, and continue my Linux
> education on that.  Thanks in advance for your comments.
>
> Jerry in Bothell, WA
>
I run 64 bit SUSE on my system and so far the only issue is with
browsers, in that 64 bit pluggins are not common.  That said however,
you can install both 64 and 32 bit apps on the same system and you'd
have a tough time telling which is which.  So, go for the 64 bit OS and
install 32 bit Firefox etc.

Besides, with 64 bits, you can use bigger words in text documents.  ;-)


--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Jorge Fábregas-2
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 2:52 pm, James Knott wrote:
> I run 64 bit SUSE on my system and so far the only issue is with
> browsers, in that 64 bit pluggins are not common.

Also, the win32 codecs for mplayer won't work. For these 2 reasons I went back
and did the 32-bit install.

Jorge
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Patrick Shanahan
* Jorge Fábregas <[hidden email]> [05-15-07 15:17]:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 2:52 pm, James Knott wrote:
> > I run 64 bit SUSE on my system and so far the only issue is with
> > browsers, in that 64 bit pluggins are not common.
>
> Also, the win32 codecs for mplayer won't work. For these 2 reasons I
> went back and did the 32-bit install.

I am also running x86_64, with:

2.6.18.8-396-default #1 SMP

MPlayer-w32codecs-1.0rc1-0@i586
RealPlayer-10.0.8-0.2@i586
flash-player-9.0.31.0-2.1@i586
mplayerplug-in-3.40-0.pm.1@i586
MPlayer-k8-1.0rc1-jen2@x86_64
MPlayer-k8_sse3-1.0rc1-jen2@x86_64
alsaplayer-0.99.76-73@x86_64
kmplayer-0.9.4a-1.guru.suse101@x86_64
MozillaFirefox-2.0.0.3-11.2@i586


I have no problem that I am aware of  :^)

--
Patrick Shanahan         Plainfield, Indiana, USA        HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org     Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
OpenSUSE Linux                                   http://en.opensuse.org/
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://counter.li.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

James Knott
In reply to this post by Jorge Fábregas-2
Jorge Fábregas wrote:

> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 2:52 pm, James Knott wrote:
>  
>> I run 64 bit SUSE on my system and so far the only issue is with
>> browsers, in that 64 bit pluggins are not common.
>>    
>
> Also, the win32 codecs for mplayer won't work. For these 2 reasons I went back
> and did the 32-bit install.
>
> Jorge
>  
Are you certain of that?  I'm not at home at the moment, so I can't
verify, but I'm certain 64 bit Mplayer works for me.


--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

James Knott
In reply to this post by Patrick Shanahan
Patrick Shanahan wrote:

> * Jorge Fábregas <[hidden email]> [05-15-07 15:17]:
>  
>> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 2:52 pm, James Knott wrote:
>>    
>>> I run 64 bit SUSE on my system and so far the only issue is with
>>> browsers, in that 64 bit pluggins are not common.
>>>      
>> Also, the win32 codecs for mplayer won't work. For these 2 reasons I
>> went back and did the 32-bit install.
>>    
>
> I am also running x86_64, with:
>
> 2.6.18.8-396-default #1 SMP
>
> MPlayer-w32codecs-1.0rc1-0@i586
> RealPlayer-10.0.8-0.2@i586
> flash-player-9.0.31.0-2.1@i586
> mplayerplug-in-3.40-0.pm.1@i586
> MPlayer-k8-1.0rc1-jen2@x86_64
> MPlayer-k8_sse3-1.0rc1-jen2@x86_64
> alsaplayer-0.99.76-73@x86_64
> kmplayer-0.9.4a-1.guru.suse101@x86_64
> MozillaFirefox-2.0.0.3-11.2@i586
>
>
> I have no problem that I am aware of  :^)
>
>  
Well, that's fine, but we need a list of problems that you're not aware
of.  ;-)


--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Patrick Shanahan
* James Knott <[hidden email]> [05-15-07 16:09]:
> Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> >I have no problem that I am aware of  :^)
> >
> >  
> Well, that's fine, but we need a list of problems that you're not
> aware of.  ;-)


I'm on it, brb   :^)   Please remain on the edge of your seat.
--
Patrick Shanahan         Plainfield, Indiana, USA        HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org     Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
OpenSUSE Linux                                   http://en.opensuse.org/
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://counter.li.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Jorge Fábregas-2
In reply to this post by Patrick Shanahan
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 3:59 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> I have no problem that I am aware of  :^)

You may have installed the w22codecs rpm but you won't  play any WMV file :)

Try these and you'll see:

http://tinyurl.com/oxf5o

HTH,
Jorge
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Jorge Fábregas-2
In reply to this post by James Knott
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 4:06 pm, James Knott wrote:
> Are you certain of that?  I'm not at home at the moment, so I can't
> verify, but I'm certain 64 bit Mplayer works for me.

Yes, I'm pretty sure abou tit. I have everything installed, configured (spent
about 2 days setting up everything) and then I couldn't play any
windows-media-video anywhere...I did my Google search and it turns out
Mplayer(64-bit) won't load 32-bit win codecs...  For the rest of the codecs
you may have no problem with mplayer...It's just those win32 codecs the
problem...  Check these:

http://tinyurl.com/oxf5o
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Sunny_bg
On 5/15/07, Jorge Fábregas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 4:06 pm, James Knott wrote:
> > Are you certain of that? I'm not at home at the moment, so I can't
> > verify, but I'm certain 64 bit Mplayer works for me.
>
> Yes, I'm pretty sure abou tit. I have everything installed, configured (spent
> about 2 days setting up everything) and then I couldn't play any
> windows-media-video anywhere...I did my Google search and it turns out
> Mplayer(64-bit) won't load 32-bit win codecs...  For the rest of the codecs
> you may have no problem with mplayer...It's just those win32 codecs the
> problem...  Check these:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/oxf5o

You need to install 32bit mplayer, and if you are using 64bit firefox,
you need the 32bit mplayer plugin (not the 64 bit one) and use
nspluginwrapper
(http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/projects/nspluginwrapper/) so FF uses
the 32bit mplayer.

Same for flash (only 32bit available).

I do not have 64 bit 10.2, only 10.0, so I use the 64 bit browser. I
think I read that in 10.2 by default you get the 32 bit browser, so
you will not need to use the wrapper anyway. But for sure the mplayer
need to be the 32 bit one in order to play wmv files. Even then the
results will vary, the codecs have not been changed for a long time,
newer versions of wmv exists, I have problems playing some of these
videos even on 32 bit machine. So, I just stopped to watch content in
wmv, as I do not want to tolerate content providers who do the "wrong"
stuff :)

--
Svetoslav Milenov (Sunny)

Even the most advanced equipment in the hands of the ignorant is just
a pile of scrap.
N�����r��y隊Z)z{.�ﮞ˛���m�)z{.��+�Z+i�b�*'jW(�f�vǦj)h���Ǿ��i�������
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Patrick Shanahan
In reply to this post by Jorge Fábregas-2
* Jorge Fábregas <[hidden email]> [05-15-07 16:28]:
> On Tuesday 15 May 2007 3:59 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> > I have no problem that I am aware of  :^)
>
> You may have installed the w22codecs rpm but you won't  play any WMV file :)
>
> Try these and you'll see:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/oxf5o

guess you need to look at:
  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/~pat/JLeno.on.MPlayer.jpg
 
the wmv is at:
  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/~pat/JLeno.wmv

sorry...

--
Patrick Shanahan         Plainfield, Indiana, USA        HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org     Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
OpenSUSE Linux                                   http://en.opensuse.org/
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://counter.li.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Patrick Shanahan
In reply to this post by Sunny_bg
* Sunny <[hidden email]> [05-15-07 16:36]:
 [...]
> I have problems playing some of these videos even on 32 bit machine.
> So, I just stopped to watch content in wmv, as I do not want to
> tolerate content providers who do the "wrong" stuff :)

Even windoz uzers have probs with some wmvs amoung a hord of other
probs  :^).

--
Patrick Shanahan         Plainfield, Indiana, USA        HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org     Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
OpenSUSE Linux                                   http://en.opensuse.org/
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://counter.li.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Jorge Fábregas-2
In reply to this post by Patrick Shanahan
On Tuesday 15 May 2007 5:05 pm, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> guess you need to look at:
>   http://wahoo.no-ip.org/~pat/JLeno.on.MPlayer.jpg

I just searched on the mplayer list and apparently ffmpeg and faad do the
windows codecs fine in mplayer-64bit but I don't think they do the new
versions.  

Patrick can you confirm the HD ones (WMV 9) on the link on my previous post?

Cheers!
Jorge
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Patrick Shanahan
* Jorge Fábregas <[hidden email]> [05-15-07 17:45]:
> I just searched on the mplayer list and apparently ffmpeg and faad do
> the windows codecs fine in mplayer-64bit but I don't think they do the
> new versions.  
>
> Patrick can you confirm the HD ones (WMV 9) on the link on my previous
> post?

No, there are only exe and aspx files.  Give me a url to a proper wmv
file and I will try it.

--
Patrick Shanahan         Plainfield, Indiana, USA        HOG # US1244711
http://wahoo.no-ip.org     Photo Album:  http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
OpenSUSE Linux                                   http://en.opensuse.org/
Registered Linux User #207535                    @ http://counter.li.org
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit

Joe Morris
In reply to this post by Jerry Houston
Jerry Houston wrote:
> I'll be using an Athlon dual-core 64-bit chip, 2 GB of dual-channel
> RAM, and at least until the recent conversations, I had been planning
> on installing the current "stable" 64-bit OpenSuSE distro.
Sounds like a good and reasonable plan.  I have been running x86_64
since 9.1 (presently 10.2).  I find the learning experience to be even
better.
>
> Given the circumstances I've described, would that (a) be a worthwhile
> learning experience,
Yes, and I say that from experience.
> (b) appear no different than a 32-bit installation,
There certainly are some differences and challenges, but those enhance
the learning.  I believe SUSE is on the cutting edge for x86_64, and to
be the best and most organized distro for x86_64.
> (c) be nothing but trouble, or
Definitely not.
> (d) something else?
If this is mainly for the learning, with your hardware, I would heartily
recommend installing openSUSE 10.2 x86_64.  Not only is it a reliable
system, it gives you potential to learn and grow in many areas.
>
> If (a), I'm looking forward to using my first ever 64-bit computer.
> Otherwise, I'll just install the 32-bit distro, and continue my Linux
> education on that.  Thanks in advance for your comments.
I would definitely go with a (and did back in 2004) and grow on from
there.  There are many folks here that can help in the process.

--
Joe Morris
Registered Linux user 231871 running openSUSE 10.2 x86_64





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12