On Sunday 23 April 2006 14:17, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: >| From: Kam Leo <kam.leo@xxxxxxxxx> >| >| 1. The x86_64 drivers are still not as mature (debugged) as the ones >| for the x86_32. Testing volunteers wanted/needed. > >Really? I've been running x86_64 on my desktop and notebook for >almost two years. Drivers seem to be fine now. > >I don't use ndiswrapper. My guess is that it might actually work >better in 64-bit mode because of stack size issues (the per-process >kernel stack space is twice as big in x86_64 as on i386; some >ndiswrapper drivers crash into Red Hat's choice of small stack size on >i386). > >There has been some recent success in creating a native Linux driver >for Broadcom 802.11g controllers. > http://bcm43xx.berlios.de This one is interesting as I'm currently running the windows drivers under ndiswrapper, and its working fine. But I would like to be able to junk the ndiswrapper thing if I could. >I've not tried it but it would be great to have more users using it >and reporting back to the developers (and even contributing). Much >better for the Linux ecosystem than using ndiswrapper. I agree, but here is my conundrum: When I try to install the x86-64 from the dvd on an HP lappy with an AMD64 Turion in it, the installation takes a dump right after formatting the partitions because it cannot find setup-2.5.49 on the dvd. I tried twice, with two diferent dvd, on a +R and one a -R. Now I just looked at the dvd, and I was able to unpack and view the contents of this file with mc with no problems. So the $32k question is what happened? Do I need to add more options to the boot line in order for it to work? I'm currently booting the x86 install using "irqpoll noapic nopapci pci=assign-busses lapic". Or is there a way to convert an x86 install to an x86-64 install on the fly? I'd hate to have to redo all the customization I've put into this at this late date when I have only about 4 days to do it in. >| 2. For the home user there is not a "must have" application or >| feature in x86-64 that makes it compelling to switch. > >Agreed. > >But maybe soon: RAM may be creeping down in price. My desktop now has >3G because I saw a deal for 2G at Canadian$125 (after rebates, at >Tiger direct). If that kind of price becomes normal, the 4G boundary >is going to pinch. > >I like diversity of platforms. It keeps the code honest. It is also >makes things a little bit harder for the bad guys. > >| 3. If you want everything to be 64-bit it will be much later. >| Because of patent issues for multimedia that may be never. > >FC5 x86_64 can run i386 userland code. All that patented/closed >source i386-only crap is in userland. So you can run it on an x86_64 >installation. Example: on x86_64, if you want to use flash (which >comes as a i386-only browser plugin), you need to use an i386 browser. -- Cheers, Gene People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word 'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
