Arch64 is a lot more faster. I have only 1 Gb of RAM and I think this is absolutely not a problem.
My system is responsive, fast, stable. I use it for work too.
I suppose that a good deal will be gcc 4.3. It will bring -mtune support for the Core2 Duo. This will help probably.
]]>Although it seems like on the software side older drivers and wine need chroot
]]>Anyway, the kernel should be enough. I do use 64bit only on my linux-vserver machines. The host is a 64bit systeml, but the guests are all 32bit.
]]>I have had 3GB of ram in my archcomputer for several years. ASUS a7v333.
I find it interesting to run fully in ram in Linux whereas to use 3GB in windows 2000 for example you need a special dispensation from Redmond.
Linux loves ram and I don't feel it is ever wasted.
At present, I find it advantageous to boot Faunos and larch boots into ram. The total power while in ram required to run a mobo at 2.8GHZ with a system not having any pc cards nor HDD's is very low with my core duo processor. I have 2GB in that mobo and wish that I had much more but the cost of ram for the 64bit systems is still too high.
Linux loves ram!!!
]]>fumbles wrote:lilsirecho wrote:I would say that 4GB RAM is not enough to run a full-bore 64bit system since it uses more ram to begin with.
Much to the point is the need for 16 to 64 GB of RAM for a good 64bit system but not at this time since programming is lacking.
I would say that your wrong... If you have over 2GB in a system, you should get a 64bit distro. Or just remove memory until you have 2GBs, because it is wasted otherwise.
not wasted, you can use it fine.
http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm
(not just Windows)
]]>lilsirecho wrote:I would say that 4GB RAM is not enough to run a full-bore 64bit system since it uses more ram to begin with.
Much to the point is the need for 16 to 64 GB of RAM for a good 64bit system but not at this time since programming is lacking.
I would say that your wrong... If you have over 2GB in a system, you should get a 64bit distro. Or just remove memory until you have 2GBs, because it is wasted otherwise.
not wasted, you can use it fine.
]]>Our only real problems lie with insufficient support from closed source vendors
No doubt. From Lightscribe:
LightScribe is just starting support for Linux, and we apologize for the limited support. Linux 64 bit is not currently supported and no announcements have been made about it's future availability. Your best option would be to keep an eye on our Linux downloads page or possibly check the Pre-Release Software Evaluation page in the future.
Fortunately, the work-arounds for just about everything are easy now. I also recommend 64 bit.
]]>You don't NEED significantly more memory to run 64 bit, especially under a lean and mean distro like ours (typically around 200MB of ram is used on above mentioned laptop when running Gnome, Compiz-Fusion, Firefox and a couple PDFs), but it gives you the OPTION to address more memory. Linux itself is absolutely stable 64 bit. Our only real problems lie with insufficient support from closed source vendors (primarily things like Flash) due to low user bases, due largely to FUD and apathy. Use it! And if something doesn't work for you, make your voice heard! That is the only way things (especially in Linux) are going to improve!
]]>I would say that 4GB RAM is not enough to run a full-bore 64bit system since it uses more ram to begin with.
Much to the point is the need for 16 to 64 GB of RAM for a good 64bit system but not at this time since programming is lacking.
I would say that your wrong... If you have over 2GB in a system, you should get a 64bit distro. Or just remove memory until you have 2GBs, because it is wasted otherwise.
I run a x64 OS because:
I run programmes which are only x64.
Have 4GB of memory.
I am a coder.
It is faster in processing large amounts of data like HDTV or other stuff. 64Bit has a bigger ALU and so is faster at calculating large integers or floatingpoints.
Not my case. My calculations are done mostly on 32-bit integers (such datatype is enough for me). And I'm not doing any images processing.
And i think there is some perf advantage especially if you work and not play, compiling and what not might be faster.
I spend 95% of my time working on sources of the software I make (NetBeans, Eclipse). Compilation takes less than 1% of my time.
]]>Here are 3 situations I would not recommand a 64 bit system :
1 - You think your system will be faster than a 32 bit one.
2 - You do not know what a 64 bit system is against a 32 bit system and its consequences on programming stuffs
3 - You do not want to bother with recompiling stuffs or change some software you use because they do not support 64 bit.
1 - It is faster in processing large amounts of data like HDTV or other stuff. 64Bit has a bigger ALU and so is faster at calculating large integers or floatingpoints.
2/3 - The consequences on programming aren't that big. If you use glib2 for vars for example you don't need to worry about anything. Stuff like python works always.
You can use any software on arch64. Even 32Bit. Either with the lib32 stuff from arch64 or an chroot with arch32 http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arc … bit_system
With this you can have the advantages of both systems... If you have the extra gigabyte for the chroot go for this....