Arch VS. Arch64

peque · 2006-06-04 10:09:43

Hi .

I would like to know a little bit more about the difference between normal Arch linux and Archlinux64?

Is there some difference - do I get better performance out of using arch64. building a mediecenter and bougth an AMD64 ! Would I have better performance out of using arch64. ???

phildg · 2006-06-04 11:07:15

I personally can't tell the difference, using Arch and Arch64 in a usual desktop/workstation environment.

Only problems with the Arch64 installation is support for some codecs (the real player ones), flash - I hate it myself but have to use it for some websites and gnash isn't quite up to the job yet, and lack of acrobat reader. I use epdfview were I can, but some badly formed pdf files won't work or are very slow.

So to summarise, the only problems I have with my Arch64 installation are due to lack of support from commercial companies for proprietary formats.

peque · 2006-06-04 11:32:42

I'm more interested in the difference about sound, movie aso.
How would Arch64 be as backend for Myth TV?

iBertus · 2006-06-04 21:16:52

Unless you need the extra address space to use a huge amount of memory, you probably should just use what is known to work. That said, Arch64 is in need of more users so that questions like yours can be answered more completely. But, if you need certain things from commercial software companies that haven't yet been ported to the 64-bit platform you should stick with 32-bit Arch Linux. Arch64 is not really made to support 32/64-bit libs both like some hybrid distros attempt to do.

Gullible Jones · 2006-06-05 01:31:11

If you want something Arch-ish that fully supports 64-bit systems there is Frugalware.

(I'm hoping that Arch will officially support x86-64 at some point though.)

iBertus · 2006-06-05 02:33:49

Gullible Jones wrote:

If you want something Arch-ish that fully supports 64-bit systems there is Frugalware.
(I'm hoping that Arch will officially support x86-64 at some point though.)

Arch64 is the first offical port, but some stuff just isn't good yet for 64-bit in general. Stuff like codecs and java applets don't work correctly.

AndyRTR · 2006-06-05 16:51:44

Gullible Jones wrote:

If you want something Arch-ish that fully supports 64-bit systems there is Frugalware.
(I'm hoping that Arch will officially support x86-64 at some point though.)

:evil:

Frugal is far from beeing Arch-ish :!: And I don't see anything the x84-64 Frugalware port has that Arch64 hasn't.

For a multileadia pc I would still prefer a 32bit OS. The gain of better codec support is it worth. The system is still fast enough that you will not see a noticeable difference to a 64bit OS.

AndyRTR

Mr Green · 2006-06-05 17:36:52

Well Mr Shuttleworth has said he would like to see a multi-arch version on ubuntu for that reason....

But Arch64 is and more than likely be 64 bit only which is a pity

as you say codecs are the main issue .... although mplayer & vlc work now under 64 (just!)

I am still running Arch32 on my box which, its quick enough for me ....

As for Frugal it has only one thing in common with Arch & thats pacman nothing else is the same.....

iBertus · 2006-06-05 22:13:44

I really don't see Arch64's 64-bit only policy as a set back. Commercial software (codecs, java, acroread) will eventually be released for the 64-bit platform as demand increases in the market. Only certain users really need the 64-bit system currently and most of those are not looking to play multimedia content or browse the web.

Remember, the AMD64 platform is still the best 32-bit processor out there...

Arch Linux

#1 2006-06-04 10:09:43

Arch VS. Arch64

#2 2006-06-04 11:07:15

Re: Arch VS. Arch64

#3 2006-06-04 11:32:42

Re: Arch VS. Arch64

#4 2006-06-04 21:16:52

Re: Arch VS. Arch64

#5 2006-06-05 01:31:11

Re: Arch VS. Arch64

#6 2006-06-05 02:33:49

Re: Arch VS. Arch64

#7 2006-06-05 16:51:44

Re: Arch VS. Arch64

#8 2006-06-05 17:36:52

Re: Arch VS. Arch64

#9 2006-06-05 22:13:44

Re: Arch VS. Arch64

Board footer