Are You Switching to 64-bit Processors? 252
chip_whisperer asks: "I used to be a big time custom desktop builder, making many working boxes per year, but I've been off the bandwagon for about four years now and am trying to get back into it now that Ars Technica has just released their recommendations. The standard seems to be heading towards 64-bit processors, but I'm wondering if it worth it to run a box on XP-64? I've heard that driver support for 64-bit processors can be a hassle. Also, for you fellow Linux geeks, how are current distros (like Suse, Ubuntu, Debian, and others) doing in supporting 64 bit processors?"
Make a list (Score:5, Informative)
Make a list of what XP-64 will do for you that XP won't. If there's anything on that list that really entices you, consider XP-64. If not, forget it, and go along your merry way. XP-64 is guaranteed to give you more driver problems than XP, so if there are no added benefits in using it (which there probably aren't for you, unless you want to use over 2GB of memory), there's no reason for the headache.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be whether the Windows-users in the Slashdot community plan to run 64-bit Vista, considering its enhanced security (PatchGuard et al.) as well as its enhanced possibilities of restricting you from doing things on your own computer.
Windows user (Score:5, Funny)
I spoke to the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You just don't understand how open source works, do you? If for some reason the Slashdot penguin horde promises to stop tarring and feathering Windows users, I'll just fork the project and start my own horde!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
fether? Is that a new compression algorithm I missed?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kind of. You see, once you label him as a Windows user with the feathers, half an hour later what's left of him will be so small that you could transport or store it in a tiny fraction of the space originally required. Rumour has it that the algorithm is somewhat lossy, however.
Re:Windows user (Score:4, Informative)
WRONG... it's not the tine count. It's the shape.
I have used a three-pronged pitchfork (as well as 4 and 5-tined pitchforks, and a 12-tined ensilage fork). A trident is a three-head spear (with the heads in a line instead of a triangle), and as such, the axis of the heads is parallel to the shaft. You don't want to stab and have the impact offset from the thrust, or worse, have an impaled opponent fall in such a way as to trap your weapon. A pitchfork is a material-handling tool, with the tines offset from the shaft in order to permit better retention of the load.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Make a list (Score:5, Informative)
The default apps and such defaulted to the 32-bit versions, so I had to make some changes to the paths but after that all works well. It has been running non-stop for over 7 days, without a single problem. Actually, I haven't rebooted it at all after the installation, so I haven't much experience. This evening I ran through Windows Update and it updated a few things, but didn't require a reboot which was surprising.
The speed isn't bad for a 64-bit system but Vista is ram-hungry, so I won't be able to see much improvement until I add the extra memory.
In the future, I will not buy anymore new 32-bit systems, only 64-bit. I will, however, continue to check out vintage 32-bit systems for a good price, if necessary. At Christmas, Santa Clause is bringing me 2 DL-360s, which he only paid Euro 250.00 each. I'll use these for W2K3, and all the server-related apps.
But the future is 64-bit and so far, so good.
Just my 2 centimes,
Mark-Allen
Re:Make a list (Score:5, Informative)
Vista is more RAM hungry than XP, but not by a vast amount.
If you see that you have very little free memory, this is probably because Vista has a completely new memory management system that learns the apps you most often use and pre-loads them into RAM to speed things up. As soon as you actually need any of that memory it starts unloading things.
Granted, 1 gig won't really cut it if you're using Visual Studio or SQL Server 2005 Developer Edition (that's why I'm still on XP - plus I'm waiting on SP2 for SQL Server for Vista Compat), but for most tasks and gaming 1 gig will still be ample.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, if the drivers ever come up to snuff in the first place. I do have a 64-bit CPU in my laptop that, at the moment, is just doing 32-bit jumping jacks.
(And as I do not intend to buy music with MS's DRM, I really don't see what you th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Make a list (Score:4, Informative)
4GB is the amount of addressable memory, but that number doesn't take into account the way Windows handles that memory. Because of the way its memory management scheme works, 32-bit Windows can only address a total of 2GB of kernel memory and 2GB of memory for a single application. With 4GB of memory, a single application could not access 3GB. Additionally, the limitation of 2GB of kernel memory poses problems for terminal servers and other applications that may use more than 2GB of kernel memory. See The 4GB Windows Memory Limit: What does it really mean? [brianmadden.com] for more information.
My point in recommending the consideration of 64-bit Windows for amounts of memory over 2GB is that you may start to run into these limitations in 32-bit Windows with over 2GB of memory. If you actually have a reason for putting more than 2GB of memory in your computer, these limitations, and a 64-bit operating system, are things worth considering depending on your application.
/3G (Re:Make a list) (Score:3, Informative)
You can start many applications with the additional switch /3G, which will cause Windows to split the 4Gb of the process' address space 3:1 between user and kernel space instead of the default 2:2. But that's it...
Windows is not the only OS like this. On AIX 32-bit processes are also limited to 2Gb, for example, while on Solaris you have your entire 4Gb.
That said, if maximum memory is not an issue for your program (as is usually the case), it is quite convenient (and fast) to have the same address space
Why would I? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no need for 64 bit processing in my business (retail and web). Computer upgrades have to be worth it, from a financial standpoint. There's no reason for my business to spend any money on 64 bit processors.
The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:5, Informative)
All the new processors from AMD and Intel (and IBM, for that matter) are 64-bit. Therefore, if you get a new PC, you have no choice but to get a 64-bit processor in it. And since they're all backwards-compatible to 32-bit, there's no downside.
The only relevant issue here is whether you want to run 64-bit or 32-bit software on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Some brand updated the Core Duo to Core 2 Duo for 'free', but for most, it is still a premium that is not worth it (10% more perf 30% more $). Especially right now before the release of Vista, when you have the choice between a beter graphic card or a marginally beter CPU.
But as you said, probably second quarter next year, that would be a n
Re:The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:4, Informative)
So for this significant portion of the notebook market, I think the transition to 64-bit will probably stretch out past Q2 2007. It might go quicker than most, however, because Merom uses the same chipset as Yonah.
Re:The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
They came out with a 64bit CPU that, unlike Itanium, performed just as fast on 32bit tasks as the predecessor. Which meant that buying AMD 64bit chips was a no-risk decision. You could get a 64bit chip (future-proof) but without sacrificing performance on existing 32bit workloads. I don't know if it was an engineering or marketing decision, but it was an important one.
Imagine a world where Intel's Core 2 was the first 64bit chip for x86. It would've pushed the move to 64bit back to 2010 instead of possibly happening as soon as 2007.
(Not sure when the 64bit Xeon CPUs first hit the market. We've been buying all Opteron systems.)
Re:The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, I hate to break it to you, but the newer chips have other virtues than just being 64-bit: they're also considerably faster (and possibly dual-core). Why are you going out of your way to get a slower chip?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that the situation seems likely to persist this time.
No, at most you'll get a 100%
Re:Why would I? (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, you will even lose out - 64 bit systems waste more memory than 32 bit systems. That's primarily because the 32-bit structures take up 64 bits on 64 bit system, while not carrying any more data. And all the pointers are suddenly 64 bit in length, etc.
In other words, it's worth switching only if you have and plan to use a reasonably larger amount of RAM/HD space than the 32 bit max limit. (in other words, if you want to switch to use 5gb, i'd recommend sticking with 32 bit system, but for 6gb or 8gb the pros start outweighing the cons)
Re:Why would I? (Score:5, Insightful)
One example is that bit-board chess engines, including the current top engine Rybka, are much faster. Non bit-board engines gain little or are slower (The extra registers! They do nothing! Or at least not enough to do more than make up for the code bloat).
Large number arithmetic (e.g. encryption) gains even more because one 64 bit multiply does more that twice the work of a 32 bit multiply.
Re:Why would I? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't speak for x86-64 because I've never seen it, but I've played around with 64-bit PowerPC, and that's really not true. Or not necessarily, anyway. Note that in 64-bit PowerPC, there are no "modes"; all registers are 64 bits in width. However, that doesn't stop 32-bit code from running unmodified.
Basically what it comes down to is: it's not the size of your register; it's the size of
Re:Why would I? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true for Sparc64. Not so much for amd64.
Doubling the number of general purpose registers is nothing to scoff at. Software that takes advantage of that can easily get a noticeable performance jump. Further, the only thing that should reliably be taking up more memory is pointers - x86 & amd64 don't have significant alignment issues like RISC processors, so they can handle short data (i.e. 32 or even 16 bit integers) all day long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's that important to save some memory by using 32-bit pointers (and you don't need a 64-bit process address space), then it seems to me it should be pretty easy to compile to code that only uses 32-bit pointers, even with 64-bit code. It shouldn't be hard to mark a process as only having a 32-bit address space so the kernel memory allocation calls don't allocate anything outside of that range (as they'd have to do with 32-bit code anyway). Doesn't GCC support having 64-bit code with 32-bit pointers?
Re: (Score:2)
Your processing power won't improve at all by switching to x64. The only improvement is that you will be able to address more RAM and HD space, nothing else
This is not really true. On x86, you get a bunch of extra general purpose registers when you switch to x86-64, making the architecture only very register-starved, as opposed to insanely register-starved. If you are running Lisp code, for example, then this can give a huge performance gain, since existing Lisp compilers work far better on architectures with a lot of registers (on SPARC or PowerPC, Lisp code compiled with the Steel Bank Common Lisp compiler tends to out-perform C++ code implementing the sa
Realizing that I'm the exception (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but if he doesn't need an upgrade, then it is much cheaper to not buy any hardware at all. ;-)
XP-64 (Score:2)
XP-64 (Score:2)
um. 32 bit? (Score:2)
Here is my posted solution on LinuxForums [linuxforums.org], in case anyone has had the Mozilla-Gmail-flash problem... but I expect that th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm running SuSE 10.0 on my HP Athlon 64 laptop and, surprisingly, I don't have that problem. I just installed Flash - 9.0 beta, no less - and it just worked.
Flash 9 is a big step up from Flash 7, too. For instance, on version 7, it was rare for the audio to be in sync with the video. That works perfectly in version 9.
Re: (Score:2)
in 64-bit Gentoo, try this:
That should let you use the 32-bit flash in 64-bit firefox.
W
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
switched already (Score:3, Informative)
Only 32-bit systems left are my laptops and I'm not in hurry to replace those.
After selling the old components, I was left to pay $50-100 per system for the upgrade.
As for XP-64, don't bother, its utter crap. No drivers whatsoever, and the ones you can find are buggy as hell.
If you want 64bit win, you'll have to wait for vista.
For linux, I'd recommend gentoo, but if you're unsure and don't want to compile the entire system, suse or ubuntu works aswell.
Not right now (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why? Did VideoDL [videodl.org] start requiring flash?
I switched to a 64 bit (Score:2)
Thank goodness for Automatix for Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless with Win64 was solved with a Gigabyte GN-WB01GS USB dongle. The 64-bit driver's on the CD, which won't autorun and complains that "this CD is for a different format than what your computer uses" or some such garbage. Open it in Windows Explorer, na
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
64-bit Adobe (RIP, "Macromedia") Flash isn't out for any platform yet.
But they're working on it.
On Linux, just go for it (Score:2)
In any case what sort of question is this? Should you buy a recent processor like the Athlon 64s AMD have been selling for ages, or the Intel chips on the market for almost as long? Well, yes of course. What half-dece
Re: (Score:2)
Core Duo and Core Solo.
Linux is fine (Score:2)
On the server, yes. (Score:2)
Not so sure about the desktop. My desktop needs are pretty basic, so I haven't thought about 64-bit for that kind of use yet.
large virtual address spaces (Score:4, Informative)
my personal belief is that the future, the nebulous area Stroustroupe outlines as "better concurrency," is really going to be implemented at a platform level as this kind of deeply nested transactional data structuring, where instead of overwriting your object to change its state, you simply append the new state in a new part of memory. thus each object accumulates address space (referentiability) as it changes across time. i'll leave the full details implementation & ramifications of Copy on Update up to the user for now.
otoh, a lot of science people want double floats and 64 bit words, but look at the big boys, nvidia. it may bite them in the @#$@# someday, but for now they're sticking to a strong party line: 32bit floating point is sufficient. this works alright for video cards & games, since 4 channels of 32bit fp is an 128bit fp buffer. thats large, but still not entirely that accurate. i'd like to see a time when even game worlds are so massive they straight up require 64bit fp. i'd like to see nvidia release consumer cards with 64bit float performance sometime soon, but i dont think the odds of that happening are very big: its new technology with only a couple scientifc users making any use of it. just as it took the boys at Epic, Sweeny & CliffyB both stating the xbox needed more video ram, without vocal powreful demand we probably wont see it for a while.
hopefully we'll be doing more distributed dispatching with gpus in the future. 64 bit ints are going to be required there.
lordmyren
by 2012 -- the end of time
Re: (Score:2)
This is the Internet. You're allowed to say "ass".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not entirely true. The new 64 bit extensions also added 8 new registers. That doesn't necessarily speed up most apps, but they do allow for more function parameters to be passed in registers. Theoretically it could reduce the number of memory accesses required, too.
otoh, a lot of science people want double floats and 64 bit words, but look at the big boys, nvidia. it may bite them in the @#
Re: (Score:2)
furthermore, to say that 32bit fp per component rendered down to 32 bit color (24 bit actually, my monitor doesnt do alpha) is excessive is an egrigious lie. the 128bit wide drawing buffer contains far more information than the screen can display, yes, but the graphics card generates some kind of mapping that m
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying here is that either your eyeball or your monitor can't discern the difference between x and x+1, so in fact 24 bit
Debian AMD64 is Awesome (Score:2)
I built an Athlon64 machine a while back and put Debian Etch on it, and it's awesome.
You have to use the testing or unstable branches to get AMD64 support until the 4.0 release, but testing (Etch) has been working perfectly for me. With very little work, I've even been able to get the few 32-bit apps I need to work. Without a chroot I have Opera (with Flash), the 32-bit proprietary video codecs, and a few others working perfectly.
The only "gotcha" I can think of is that the nVidia kernel module isn
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Debian Sarge for x86_64 is perfectly well supported; you don't have to run testing/unstable.
Good for the Linux server... (Score:2)
Yes, go for 64-bit processors (Score:2)
64-bit support under Linux is YEARS ahead of where it is under Windows! With Ubuntu Linux, 64-bit support "just works." I downloaded the x86_64 Install CD and burnt it, and everything installed flawlessly. Basically every single open source package compiles correctly in 64-bit mode, from the kernel to all the dr
Re: (Score:2)
I am going to 65 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DiBergi: "Why don't you just write a integer maths library that can virtualize any size you define, and make that a little bigger?"
Timesprout: (baffled) "This goes up to sixty-five."
How to decide between XP and XP-64 (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're even considering Windows, then that suggests you have some kind of heavy legacy requirements. Those legacy applications are what matters; check to see if they have been re-compiled. That's how you'll decide which way to go. If your legacy is ready for 64 bits, then maybe you are too. If your legacy isn't ready, then what's the point?
Can;t justify the cost. (Score:2)
I'll probably move up to 64, when you guys start talking about 128!
x86-64 is a piece of cake (Score:3, Informative)
64-bit Gentoo and SuSE both worked like a charm too - but you asked about Windows. Nice to have multiple HDD chassis. (grin)
The thing that you might have problems with were programs. I found that the 'default' install path for the 32-bit stuff would cause some of my programs to trip up. Things like the 32-bit DVD/CD burning software and a few other programs. But anyhow - should you go with a 64-bit CPU? Yes. Win64 is probably more trouble than it is worth for 'generic' gaming rig today. As Vista goes into mainstream, those using a 32-bit processor will be the odd man out.
What doesn't work... (Score:3, Informative)
You can get by pretty well with 64 bit Linux. I see no compelling reason to run 64 bit Windows yet, unless you need lots of memory. Yeah, you could get a small boost from having more registers, and yeah, it's cool; but the Windows world is just not used to porting to other architectures :). The CPUs have been out, what, 3 years? And it is still a royal pain. And if you game... get used to things like Neverwinter Nights 2 going through the entire 6 cd install, only to tell you "Oh, by the way, 64 bit doesn't work. Ha-ha!"
Yes! It's faster even on moderately sized problems (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong Question (Score:3, Insightful)
64 bit CPUs offer more than just 64 bits... (Score:2)
Even if you don't run an OS or software to utilize the 64-bit aspect of the CPU, all the current faster chips are 64-bit. Consider the 64-bit aspect as a bit of future proofing your new, fast machine. Go for SATA-2, PCI-E, and dual core, and you're set for a while.
My Experience (Score:2)
On occasion I have run into programs that acted up because I was in 64, but there are usually alternatives.
In Linux I have had 0 problems using Ubuntu. The packages are all built for my AMD64. There are occasional issues in terms of things like Fl
Switching? Now? I switched years ago. (Score:2)
64-bit the future... but (Score:2)
On the server side we'll go 64-bit when the apps demand it (Exchange 2007 for instance).
Don't Bother With XP64 Especially on Corp Network (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Don't Bother With XP64 Especially on Corp Netwo (Score:2)
Yes (Score:2)
The new PC I built a home a couple of months ago had a Core 2 Duo in it, so it's 64-bit by definition. It's still running the 32-bit version of XP, though. I only put 2 Gb of RAM in it, so there didn't seem to be much point in installing XP-64. (I'm tempted to install Ubuntu on it instead, but I still use Photoshop and Quicken and a few other Windows-only apps occasionally.)
At work, I use a workstation with a 64-bit processor and 4 Gb of RAM. It's running a 64-bit Linux kernel but most apps run in a
XP-64 (Score:5, Informative)
XP 64 is based on the WinServer 2003 x64 base, and IMO, Server 2003 x64 makes a better 64 bit workstation OS. I guess M$ frucked up big time when adding all the consumer end stuff to it. Pity 2003 x64 doesn't have the full multimedia support that its 32 bit version does.
No issues here.. (Score:2, Informative)
The only potential hiccup I encountered was finding an x64 driver for my HP printer; but there is a nice group that came out with drivers that while they claim aren't perfect, I have never had any problems with (both printing and scanning).
If you've ever low-level coded for x64 it can be slightly more painful or new; but its definitely worth it in the end (as well as multi-core).
I made the switch about a year and a half ago (Score:2)
The only (minor) problems I've had is that there is no 64 bit version of the Java plugin, and there is no 64 version of Flash player, therefore I run a 32 bit version of Firefox with the 32 bit version of the Java plugin and Flash player.
I'm still on FC 5, which includes a 32 bit version of OpenOffice.org, runs just fine (I heard that FC 6 includes a 64 bit version of OO.o).
Ubuntu x64 here (Score:5, Informative)
Add me to the tally of folks running 64 bit Linux. For most purposes, the performance boost is unnoticable. However, I do get a few more FPS when transcoding video and I've noticed no other difficulties compared to 32bit Ubuntu. As others, I run 32 bit Firefox, but this is a breeze to install via automatix. About the only things that don't work for me are Google Earth and RealPlayer. I haven't bothered to look for others having similar troubles with Google Earth (app loads just fine, but imagery is all scrambled) and I don't care that much that RealPlayer barely runs (skips, audio out of sync, hangs inexplicably . . . but it did that on 32bits too).
As far as general day to day use goes, if you've got a 64 bit proc w/ a 32 bit OS, it's probably not worth the hassle to reinstall 64 bit builds. If you're starting over from scratch anyway, you might want to give it a shot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm running Debian unstable, and I think things break a bit more often for 64-bit architectures than 32-bit. For example, recently apt-get source broke on 64-bit architectures. I think there are enough people however running 64-bit Debian to ensure no such flaws ever get to testing or stable. If you don'
64 is better on Linux than Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
XP-64 seems to have all sorts of driver problems that are unlikely to go away as Vista comes out.
Vista-64 has the problem that you've got the uncertain future of a heavily DRMed machine. This may or may not prove to be a show-stopper, so I'd say wait and see..
For clients? (Score:2)
64-bit Vista works well (Score:2, Informative)
I can't speak
64 bit hardware vs. 64 bit software (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I've been 100% 64 bit on the hardware side for a while now. Athlon 64 X2 in my desktop, Core 2 Duo in my laptop, and even a triple-core 64 bit "Xenon" PowerPC derivative in my game console (though I recently sold that for a Wii, I'm not sure whether "Broadway" is 64 bit or not).
Software, it's a different story. I'd have no problem running a 64 bit OS on a server or workstation where I can be certain it'll be doing a set group of tasks, but on the desktop no way.
On both Windows and Linux, drivers are the biggest issue. Linux obviously less than Windows, because all but my video drivers are open source and many were 64 bit ready before AMD ever shipped a single Opteron, but the user-level 64 bit support is less. On Windows, it was mainly driver issues and a few games that balked at the NT 5.2 (Win2003) kernel under XP64. On Linux, the biggest problem was related to plugins and codecs. I didn't have Flash or Java in my web browser and a lot of codecs either weren't there or required building from source which I prefer not to do if I have a choice. I know I could have installed 32 bit Firefox and the 32 bit plugins would have worked, but just like with the codecs it was more work than I was willing to put in to it.
In both cases 64 bit gained me nothing other than being able to say I'm running in 64 bit mode while causing quite a bit of extra work. The tradeoff wasn't worth it, so I went back.
Depending on how things develop, I might try 64 bit Vista a few months after the official release, and of course Leopard will bring my Macbook a fully 64 bit OS, but for now I'm happy with 32 bit Vista on the desktop, 32 bit Tiger on the laptop, and 32 bit Ubuntu on both.
64 bit - drivers (Score:3, Informative)
Switching? (Score:2)
Been using 64 bit for years.... (Score:2)
Lets see, can anyone say Sparc and RISC? Anyway, if you mean x86_64, then, yes, you pretty much will be purchasing a 64bit capabile processor, as all but the mobile lines are now x86_64 from both Intel and AMD. However, as you have noted, Windows XP-64 is another issue. MS decided that they were going to test out some of their lockdown controls for drivers and hardware, basically a test run for when they release Vista so they could work out some of the more nasty "features" *cough*
hardware yes - software no(t yet) (Score:2, Informative)
Just forward planning. For a serious server application, of course. But for a real workstation, you are going to have all kinds of problems for a while.. xp and linux.
"People get ready"... for a while probably.
ok shit. Believe it.
I've been using them for years (Score:2)
It depends on your environment. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand there is no reason to not use 64-bit Linux on a machine that is capable of 64-bit processing. Very few of the frequently used drivers are 32-bit only. The advantages is not only due to the fact that you are able to access large amount of memory, but you will have less problems with larger files (Above 2GB). If there are any real disadvantages I haven't seen them here.
If you plan for Vista - I don't see any reason to stick with 32-bit. This since it seems likely that the major focus on Vista development will be on the 64-bit variant. Remember that the recommended minimum RAM is 1GB and new applications are likely to use more RAM so the 4GB barrier present in 32-bit is not too far away.
Indeed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's natural that Gentoo would be good at this, considering it's a source-based distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer allowing my conscience to prevent me from doing the wrong thing. It's about the locus of control [wikipedia.org], really.
But 64-bit is overkill for a lot of us (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a desktop user with 2GB RAM, the server is a PowerPC with 1.5GB RAM. I've never seen a system munch memory like this box when it was running 64-bit Linux. Running all those compatability libraries (for Firefox, OpenOffice, and several other apps) seemed to eat a ton of RAM.
Until every app and plugin I use is 64-bit native, I think I'll stay with 32-bit operating systems.
As for 64-bit hardware, you really don't have much choice if you want to buy new hardware. There's no reason NOT to buy 64-bit processors these days, you get the best bang for your buck with AMD64 or EMT64 CPUs. 32-bit operating systems benefit from the new processors almost as much as 64-bit systems do, so go ahead and 'go 32 on 64' if you want a modern computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, the flash player. No you're right it doesn't work in 64bit. Can't say I miss it though. All it does is enable annoying ads on webpages. I usually regret installing it everytime I do. I think that the mplayer plugin is working though. Java is working but somewhat crashy.
Amd64 is an experimental system, so not everything is as fully supported as in regular x86. I can live with it. I have been considering rebuilding a small 32bit x86 system too to play older commercial Linux games, but its pretty low
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, once it was all up and running, I did notice some great speed benefits - OpenSSL simply flies, and many CPU-heavy multimedia apps such as LAME and mplayer showed slight improvments.
But the userland was another story. Since so much near-essential stuff* is still 32bit (thanks, mainly to sloppy coding [hello OOo...!] and closed source stuff [Flash]) you p
Re: (Score:2)
64 bit Operatings Systems (Score:2)
The valid question is "Are you switching to a 64-bit Operating System?"
SGI Irix and OSF/1 on Alpha users switched over a decade ago, Solaris went 64 bit on Sparc in 1998 and 64 bit on AMD64 in 2005.
The 32 to 64 transition was handled better on Solaris than on Linux (Sun had a lot of practice with supporting Solaris on 32 and 64 bit Sparc's before tackling the 32 to 64 bit transition on x86) as there is a standard way of providing both 32 and 64 bit bit support in applications and drivers.
Kind of fun seeing another transition, having lived through the 8 to 16 bit era