Richard Lefebvre wrote: > I'm trying to figure out which binaries I should install on a dual > processor Xeon EM64T with 4 Gig Ram total (the memory won't be upgraded > for a long while). Either. > I tried booting both FC3 disk1 and they both worked, > but the x84_64 was much slower booting and starting X. Are you talking about the graphical install here? I'm not sure why the x86-64 would be slower. It shouldn't be. If you can press Crtl-Alt-F2, Ctrl-Alt-F3, etc., you *may* see some relevant debugging info. Ctrl-Alt-F1 or Ctrl-Alt-F7 should get you back into the installer. When installed, CPU intensive programs may be around 10% faster. It depends on a number of factors. > What would be the big advantage of using x86_64 over the i386? For what purposes will you be using the system? If you're looking at (for example) big GIMP editing, big databases, or anything that needs to map a lot of memory, you're going to run into the various 32 bit limitations in i386. There may or may not be ways around them, but the cleanest way is simply to run 64 bit binaries. If, on the other hand, it's a big Postfix or SMB server, then it shouldn't make much of a difference. I'm very pleased with this new x86-64 install on an Athlon 64, for what it's worth. James. -- James Wilkinson | It is difficult to produce a television documentary Exeter Devon UK | that is both incisive and probing when every twelve E-mail address: james | minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing rabbits @westexe.demon.co.uk | singing about toilet paper. -- R. Serling
