32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

JWL · 2008-06-19 21:28:52

Hi
My first post
But i have question to your gays out there.
I have a computer with this hardware :

Quad 6600
Ram's 4 GB
and Geforce 8800 gts 512 MB

but what is the best choice ? 64 or 32 bit's ?

can 32 bit's read up to 4 GB or it's like windows 32 bit's can only read 3 GB ?

PS : Tell me if you dont understand me

Stythys · 2008-06-19 21:32:07

unless you can specifically say why you want 64-bit over 32-bit (besides "it's cool") then stick with 32-bit. You'll only ever notice speed increase when you're doing serious multimedia work anyways, and you'll run into a bunch of compatibility problems.

Last edited by Stythys (2008-06-19 21:32:27)

JWL · 2008-06-19 21:43:29

I dont now why i show use 64 bit's
But if 32 bit's can read and use 4 GB ram's than i will go for 32 but if 32 bit cant read 4 gb than i go for 64 bit.
But i have hear it's very mush problems with 64 bit with drives and programs.

Last edited by JWL (2008-06-19 21:46:40)

JWL · 2008-06-19 22:13:37

and how show i partiosjon my hardriver ??

/ = 5 GB
swap = 4 GB ram how mush show i go for swap than 4028 MB'S ??
/boot= 512 MB's
/home = the rest

Stythys · 2008-06-19 22:15:58

just use 32-bit.

/ - 7.5 to 10 GB
swap - 4GB if you plan to hibernate. 512MB if not.
/boot - 32MB
/home - the rest

JWL · 2008-06-19 22:19:47

yea i plans some tims to go in hibernate than i start must faster next time so than i show go for 4028 mb on swap ? and dont i need more on /boot ?

Stythys · 2008-06-19 22:27:06

yeah, so go at least 4GB on swap, and yes boot is very small. You could prolly even go less than 32MB but just keep it safe

JWL · 2008-06-19 22:34:46

what can i do wrong on the /boot ? boot are always in the safe sone
or what do you mean ?

tigrmesh · 2008-06-20 02:02:08

I think he means if you want to have more than 1 or 2 kernels to boot into. My boot partition is 98 MB. My arch boot files only take up 9 MB. I don't mind that there is so much unused space; this is one partition I don't want to have fill up...

skottish · 2008-06-20 02:13:32

Stythys wrote:

unless you can specifically say why you want 64-bit over 32-bit (besides "it's cool") then stick with 32-bit. You'll only ever notice speed increase when you're doing serious multimedia work anyways, and you'll run into a bunch of compatibility problems.

And even a lot of multimedia stuff doesn't benefit. For instance Blender's internal renderer produces identical results on the same machine whether 32 or 64 bit.

JWL, welcome to the forums. Your English is fine; there's no need to be concerned.

toofishes · 2008-06-20 02:18:58

Stythys wrote:

unless you can specifically say why you want 64-bit over 32-bit (besides "it's cool") then stick with 32-bit. You'll only ever notice speed increase when you're doing serious multimedia work anyways, and you'll run into a bunch of compatibility problems.

Wow, I didn't know we had a FUD forum here. The only sticking point I know of with 64 bit is flash support, and even that is getting better. In addition, using 64-bit allows better CFLAGS to be used enabling all of the SSE stuff we can't do in i686.

shazeal · 2008-06-20 02:49:35

If you are getting more than 3.5g of ram go 64bit or the remainder is wasted. There are no issues with 64 bit anymore, there are 64bit flash and java plugins (or you can run 32 bit stuff under a chroot), once its setup you wont notice any real difference between 64 and 32 bit except you will have a few hundred more megs of ram.
Read up in the 64 bit forum anyway, loads of the same kinda questions in there.

Stythys wrote:

unless you can specifically say why you want 64-bit over 32-bit (besides "it's cool") then stick with 32-bit. You'll only ever notice speed increase when you're doing serious multimedia work anyways, and you'll run into a bunch of compatibility problems.

Going with the quoting trend here, are you trolling? Every post asking about 64bit Ive seen lately you say this, its so untrue its not funny.

Stythys · 2008-06-20 06:12:36

shazeal, I'm not trolling. I'm only mentioned this once, maybe twice on the forums, so don't make it sound like I'm spamming. It's my opinion. Some people agree with me, some don't. I know plenty of people on this forum who have 64-bit processors but choose to run 32-bit arch. That's what happens in life. People have different opinions. Leave it at that.

Last edited by Stythys (2008-06-20 06:16:58)

shazeal · 2008-06-20 07:39:42

No worries. I was not accusing you of spamming.

JWL · 2008-06-20 08:20:56

skottish wrote:

Stythys wrote:
unless you can specifically say why you want 64-bit over 32-bit (besides "it's cool") then stick with 32-bit. You'll only ever notice speed increase when you're doing serious multimedia work anyways, and you'll run into a bunch of compatibility problems.
And even a lot of multimedia stuff doesn't benefit. For instance Blender's internal renderer produces identical results on the same machine whether 32 or 64 bit.
JWL, welcome to the forums. Your English is fine; there's no need to be concerned.

thx

okey than i take a choice and the choice is i go for Arch 64 bit because i have more than 3.5 gb by ram. i have now 4 gb and i wont to use my computer on the best.
i use FTP installer of arch.

see your gays on arhc hihi

jordz · 2008-06-20 08:31:34

I also use 64 bit on my AMD X2 3800+, I installed 32 bit once, but I notice a speed difference. It is also very easy to install 32bit libs when you want to run 32bit programs in 64 bit

JWL · 2008-06-20 11:04:10

Damn now i am piss ...i have try to install ARCH 64 bit 4 tims now ....and always are GRUB loader failing ....

"Error: couldn't find /mnt/boot/grub/menu.lst. is GRUB installed ?"

i partisjon like this :

swap : 4028 MB
/ : 10GB
/boot: 32 MB
/home: the rest of my 250 GB

i install the BASE pack with the grub pack to !!! but always i get

Error: couldn't find /mnt/boot/grub/menu.lst . Is Grub installed ?

i am desperate afther help now !!! HELP!!

Last edited by JWL (2008-06-20 11:06:34)

Stythys · 2008-06-20 11:27:16

why is grub looking in /mnt? the path should start in /boot. did you install grub correctly?

alex_anthony · 2008-06-20 11:37:44

JWL wrote:

see your gays on arhc hihi

Might want to say gUys not gAys

JWL · 2008-06-20 11:58:34

Stythys wrote:

why is grub looking in /mnt? the path should start in /boot. did you install grub correctly?

yea but installer install in mnt/boot/
i use ftp installer !! i need help fast !!

Berticus · 2008-06-20 12:40:13

well, where did you store your configurations? In /boot/grub/grub.conf, like you would do in ubuntu? If so just do something like:

# ln -s /boot/grub/grub.conf /boot/grub/menu.lst

I'm also confused a bit about why grub is looking into /mnt. Did you not chroot into /mnt?

JWL · 2008-06-20 13:07:14

i just do that my guide say ....and show not arch chroot self when he install the pack ?

ALT-F2 i can get into a terminal but what do you mean chroot ? how show i do that ?

No when i have finnish the partiosjons then i tell what i swap and what is root / ....than he mount into /mnt
How show i chroot than ?

Berticus · 2008-06-20 13:36:03

# chroot /mnt

Or if you'd like to stick with bash:

# chroot /mnt /bin/bash

I mean I haven't installed Arch before, I've been procrastinating; just keep putting it off. But it looks like that would be the issue of grub looking into the /mnt directory (didn't meant to say /mnt partition before).

chroot basically changes the root environment. If arch's livecd boots up /dev/hdc (or whatever you have for cdrom), and mounts that as root, then in order to work on your hard drive, you have to mount it in /mnt, according to FHS. Actually, I would mount it in /mnt/arch. But that's beside the point. In order for you to work in the arch environment on your hard drive, you need to change the root from / (on the CD) to /mnt (on the hard drive).

/mnt would then be seen as /. It's all relative really.

How did you install/setup grub? Like what were the commands you sent it?

Edited
Also, by hitting Alt+F2 (or any of the function keys), you're simply starting a new virtual terminal. That terminal operates separately from the other virtual terminals.

Last edited by Berticus (2008-06-20 13:39:09)

JWL · 2008-06-20 13:58:23

Okey update :
i downloadet new ftp cd from this :
-ftp://archlinux.puzzle.ch/iso/2008.03/x86_64/
and did take :
-Archlinux-x86_64-2008.03-1-archboot.ftp.iso

thats install did find grub and all on the first time

i think it's some bugs in the install from 2007 versions.

Arch Linux

#1 2008-06-19 21:28:52

32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#2 2008-06-19 21:32:07

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#3 2008-06-19 21:43:29

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#4 2008-06-19 22:13:37

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#5 2008-06-19 22:15:58

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#6 2008-06-19 22:19:47

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#7 2008-06-19 22:27:06

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#8 2008-06-19 22:34:46

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#9 2008-06-20 02:02:08

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#10 2008-06-20 02:13:32

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#11 2008-06-20 02:18:58

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#12 2008-06-20 02:49:35

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#13 2008-06-20 06:12:36

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#14 2008-06-20 07:39:42

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#15 2008-06-20 08:20:56

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#16 2008-06-20 08:31:34

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#17 2008-06-20 11:04:10

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#18 2008-06-20 11:27:16

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#19 2008-06-20 11:37:44

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#20 2008-06-20 11:58:34

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#21 2008-06-20 12:40:13

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#22 2008-06-20 13:07:14

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#23 2008-06-20 13:36:03

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

#24 2008-06-20 13:58:23

Re: 32 bit or 64 bit Linux Arch ?

Board footer