On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 20:58 +0000, James Wilkinson wrote: > Les wrote: > > I didn't know that the 686 stuff would run OK on the celeron, thus my > > choice of the 386 pkg. Since I see so much about the issues of 64 bit > > still being not quite fully implemented, I will probably stay where I am > > until 64 bit is fully running (I am assuming that 686 is 64 bit). > > No. Definitely not. Completely different stuff. > > Erm -- as a result of an adverse decision in a lawsuit with AMD, Intel > branded their P5 processor as the Pentium and the P6 as the Pentium Pro, > since they could trademark those names. Precisely *because* those names > were trademarked, they can't be used as generic names. So people > continued the i?86 sequence, using i586 to refer to Pentium-compatible > processors and i686 to refer to Pentium Pro-compatible processors. > > (Later, Intel branded different versions of the Pentium Pro under other > names, including Pentium II, Pentium III, and Celeron. But not all > Celerons are P6-based). > > Intel's preferred 64 bit architecture was the Itanium -- the 64 bit > architecture implemented on Athlon 64, Opteron, later Pentium 4 and > Intel Core 2 processors was designed by AMD (and cloned by Intel). > > > I have mucked up my installation a bit already and a reinstall may be > > imminent if I can't figure this out today. My ultimate goal is to drive > > a dual processor dual core system with 64 bit capability for some > > software I had been working on (I need more flops to make it useful). > > Moving to 64 bit really implies a fresh install anyway. > > > I > > really like the opterons and have been following the progress people are > > making with those systems. I hope one of them will summarize their work > > soon, and the state of the whole system would be helpful. > > Well, I've been working on a (single core) Athlon 64 for a couple of > years now, and this e-mail is written on one. > > As far as Fedora software is concerned, it looks and feels almost > indistinguishable from the 32 bit version. The whole distribution is > polished and well integrated. There are a few issues remaining with the > multiarch setup (having i386 and x86-64 versions of the same package at > once) which you don't get in 32 bit installs, and closed source software > support is often not nearly as good -- some people find that a problem. > At the moment, this mainly affects Web browser plugins and media codecs. > > Intel's new Core 2 Duo architecture is very well regarded, and quad-core > processors are beginning to come out. You may find they do what you > need. > > > ... I am a bit of a lightweight on system install and > > config stuff. So for me, a step by step install guide will get me where > > I need to be, and that appears rare. > > 1. Download an x86_64 version of Fedora Core. > > 2. Burn it to CD / DVD as you would the 32 bit version. > > 3. Place the disc inside a 64-bit capable computer. > > 4. Install as you would a 32 bit version of Fedora. > > > Also I was surprised to find > > packages installed in the "lib" directory. I have expected them to be > > in a /usr/local directory or something like that. I am a bit of a > > structure nut when it comes to systems, although you would not guess it > > when you see my computer room (messy is too polite). > > http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ : the Linux File Hierarchy Standard. It > specifies where everything goes on a Linux (or other Unix-like) > system.[1] You might also like to check > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-6.1-Manual/ref-guide/ch-sysadmin.html > which is still basically accurate. > > Hope this helps, > > James. > > [1] Having said that, by no means all Unix-like OSes claim to follow the > FHS Thanks, James, I realized the 64 bit blunder when I thought about it a bit. As I said in another post I have a really bad cold and it seems to have affected my overall performance, gray matter and gray hair considered. And thanks very much for the catch and information. Regards, Les H
