Should I use Arch64?

mahan_h · 2009-05-19 09:42:00

Suppose that I have at least:

8 Gigabytes of RAM and
250, Gigabytes of solid state HDD,
Intel core2 Quad 2500,

Should I use Arch64?

fukawi2 · 2009-05-19 09:51:14

IMHO, go for it.

Look at it the other way -- do you have any reason to need Arch32 instead?

sveri80 · 2009-05-19 09:52:41

I was trying out 64 bit linux very early and it was quit a mess these days, which kept me from trying it for a long time.
But some days ago when i wanted to reinstall anyway i decided to give it a shot once more. And what shall i say, it just works great. I had to relog after installing the flashplugin to get it working, but compared to some years ago 64 evolved very well.

Like some other ppl in the net say: There is no reason not to use it.

Allan · 2009-05-19 09:56:09

8Gb RAM = x86_64

Bogart · 2009-05-19 10:15:06

I switched to 64 bit Arch 3 months ago when i got a new computer and haven't noticed any problem because of it.

Even if you need one of the few binary-only, 32-bit-only app (Skype? GoogleEarth?) you can install a few 32 bit libraries and use them. It's not ideal, but still much better than having a whole 32 bit system just for running them.

And having 8GB of RAM should make this decision a no-brainer.

karol · 2009-05-19 10:39:03

Bogart wrote:

And having 8GB of RAM should make this decision a no-brainer.

Wouldn't PAE work for x86?

yngwin · 2009-05-19 16:00:27

The only reason to not use 64bits Linux at this point, is if your processor doesn't support it.

thoffmeyer · 2009-05-19 16:25:32

yngwin wrote:

The only reason to not use 64bits Linux at this point, is if your processor doesn't support it.

Agreed.

ataraxia · 2009-05-19 18:06:50

I'd even run 64-bit on a little machine like a nettop at this point. (The Atom 230 and 330 are 64-bit capable.)

Peasantoid · 2009-05-19 19:11:21

I'd say 64-bit. Some software doesn't support it, but I really have no idea why not — can't 64-bit processors run 32-bit code?

dmartins · 2009-05-19 21:23:58

Peasantoid wrote:

I'd say 64-bit. Some software doesn't support it, but I really have no idea why not — can't 64-bit processors run 32-bit code?

Yes, they do run 32-bit code but you must also have the 32-bit libraries installed that the 32-bit program is looking for. If you can install those libraries from community or unsupported then the 32-bit programs should work.

ckristi · 2009-05-20 09:01:24

@karol: it would work (tried it with a custom kernel, running it on a mini-datacenter at home with 4GB of RAM... x86 with PAE that is), but for some reasons the developers are not willing to enable PAE for x86 (developers from almost all distros I know, except Pardus' developers that were considering doing that in a future release). It's said it would be performance impact by enabling PAE on a 32-bit kernel, but I've seen none noticeble.

Last edited by ckristi (2009-05-20 09:03:25)

karol · 2009-05-20 10:44:01

@ckristi
Going against the current is always hard (but some say it's noble ;-) ). Recompiling the kernel is rather straightforward if you know your gear, so it's up to you: use the stock kernel / apps or try to do it your way.

[OT]I wonder how many people need mplayer compiled w/ smbclient - I don't. According to pacman, this "extra'' functionality costs me about 50MB - it's bigger than perl![/OT]

alecmg · 2009-05-20 14:06:50

latest tests at Phoronix prove to me that 64 bit linux is at least 10% faster in any tasks that involve cpu or memory. There is no more reason to stay with 32bit

Pyntux · 2009-05-20 14:49:21

I wote for 64bit...its better for me, and faster ofcourse...

ckristi · 2009-05-21 03:52:34

@alecmg: there are some reasons, like incompatible (usually proprietary) applications.
@Pyntux: better, faster, but not 100% compatible with what some people need.

Last edited by ckristi (2009-05-21 03:52:55)

xd-0 · 2009-05-21 05:53:30

fukawi2 wrote:

IMHO, go for it.
Look at it the other way -- do you have any reason to need Arch32 instead?

Agree! The only thing I miss (sometimes) is a pure wine 64bit implementation (alas, it will come!), since I hate installting lots of 32bit libs. Other then that I can't see why one shouldn't want it.
64bit is the future. Also you have a 64 bit processor and 8Gb of RAM, so why not use it?

Pyntux · 2009-05-21 08:30:54

ckristi wrote:

@alecmg: there are some reasons, like incompatible (usually proprietary) applications.
@Pyntux: better, faster, but not 100% compatible with what some people need.

Maybe, but if don`t need skype or something like that (ofcourse, you can use that on 64bit....) 64bit is right choice...I think...

ckristi · 2009-05-21 11:53:16

You may be able to use it but what if I don't want to mess around with 2 different sets of libraries and apps (64bit/32bit) for just running skype or wine or whatever? Usually this means me getting dirty with installing those libraries by hand (few distros offer lib32 as a default for 64-bit or support for such a configuration). Mixing 64bit with 32bit is a job that's to some extent well done by MS, but I've seen nothing similar in the Linux world, even in "user-friendly" distros like Ubuntu. Of course, for a server configuration if your hardware permits it, go with 64bit by all means. For the desktop, if you need packages that only run on 32bit for now... a 32bit distro is just fine.

kensai · 2009-05-21 12:36:15

ckristi wrote:

Mixing 64bit with 32bit is a job that's to some extent well done by MS,

It better be well done, 95% of the software for Windows comes only in 64bit flavors, they even ship Internet Explorer 32bit with their 64bit systems. It holds progress, and gives developers an excuse to not upgrade their software with 64bit support.

A prime example, there is no 64bit flash for windows, because it is not enforced, but there is 64bit flash for Linux because it is not enforced but is encouraged.

ckristi · 2009-05-21 12:49:32

But there's an IE 64bit also. I cannot say the same about the Windows port of Firefox (not official anyways).
But let's stop here... none of us is here to praise Windows (I know I'm not!).

Last edited by ckristi (2009-05-21 12:50:44)

eldragon · 2009-05-21 14:10:33

besides the ram limit, is there another reason for running arch64? im happy with my 32bit version since i dont need the extra address space

karol · 2009-05-21 14:11:43

besides the ram limit, is there another reason for running arch64?

The 64-bit "resolution" is good for math.

eldragon · 2009-05-21 14:21:54

karol wrote:

besides the ram limit, is there another reason for running arch64?
The 64-bit "resolution" is good for math.

so the answer is no

Mr.Cat · 2009-05-21 14:40:06

ckristi wrote:

Usually this means me getting dirty with installing those libraries by hand (few distros offer lib32 as a default for 64-bit or support for such a configuration). Mixing 64bit with 32bit is a job that's to some extent well done by MS, but I've seen nothing similar in the Linux world, even in "user-friendly" distros like Ubuntu.

In arch you should search repos for lib32-* or bin32-* packages. There are lots of them in aur. I use wine (and used 32bit flash plugin before a 64-bit plugin was released) on my 64-bit arch box and have never had to install anything by hand. In ubuntu there also are ia32-libs-* and lib32-* packages.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-19 09:42:00

Should I use Arch64?

#2 2009-05-19 09:51:14

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#3 2009-05-19 09:52:41

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#4 2009-05-19 09:56:09

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#5 2009-05-19 10:15:06

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#6 2009-05-19 10:39:03

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#7 2009-05-19 16:00:27

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#8 2009-05-19 16:25:32

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#9 2009-05-19 18:06:50

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#10 2009-05-19 19:11:21

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#11 2009-05-19 21:23:58

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#12 2009-05-20 09:01:24

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#13 2009-05-20 10:44:01

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#14 2009-05-20 14:06:50

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#15 2009-05-20 14:49:21

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#16 2009-05-21 03:52:34

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#17 2009-05-21 05:53:30

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#18 2009-05-21 08:30:54

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#19 2009-05-21 11:53:16

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#20 2009-05-21 12:36:15

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#21 2009-05-21 12:49:32

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#22 2009-05-21 14:10:33

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#23 2009-05-21 14:11:43

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#24 2009-05-21 14:21:54

Re: Should I use Arch64?

#25 2009-05-21 14:40:06

Re: Should I use Arch64?

Board footer