Arch for amd64

swim · 2005-01-28 22:23:57

Anyways this is a plea for someone to port arch to 64bit.
thx

Algol · 2005-01-28 23:41:23

I can understand your sentiment, but asaict you still don't gain much performance unless you're into databases, compiling or heavy number crunching (amd64 compilers havn't caught up yet). You might even lose performance, since you might shuffle larger pieces of data without any real need.
Besides, the beauty of the amd64 architechture is more in the memory handling (busses and controller) and scalar structure... and that part you get even if you run a 32bit OS on it.
On top of that there are still things that can't or won't be compiled for the AMD64 arch, like openoffice and win32 codecs, and while you *can* run them in mixed mode, you lose even more on it.

Still, I can understand that you want to run a 64bit OS on your amd64 (I do too, and eventually it *will* be faster for sure) but you shouldn't put too much weight into it just yet.

/Just the view of another amd64 owner

jp_fielding · 2005-01-29 00:56:52

maybe if you buy judd and a few of the other maintainers an amd64 machine they'll be motivated enough to compile for both ;-)

LavaPunk · 2005-01-29 01:25:36

When you are willing to sponser me by providing the necessary hardware I would be happy to give you a 64bit flavor of Arch.

swim · 2005-01-29 01:50:51

ok you've sold me, I have'nt been noticing any performance boosts from using ubuntu amd64 anyways, and to be honest I am definetley feeling a slower performance. I think I'm coming back to Arch x86... at least until someone puts out an optimized Arch for x86_64! I would love buy a 64bit chip for a developer to build an optimized x86_64 Arch. I'll consider buying a very cheap one...

dtw · 2005-01-29 07:28:45

wow, i just learnt i don't need to consider getting a 64but system - cool! that saved a question

Snowman · 2005-01-29 08:25:38

An amd64 port is under project:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=9548

sud_crow · 2005-01-30 00:34:40

I was thinking maybe, the beauty of Arch and Amd64 is that we may be able to "upgrade" to 64bit via pacman without a hitch..

For what i read above, mixing 64bit and 32bit apps is possible. I guess the "base" category should be updated simultaneously but, what about the rest?

Is this possible in the future? We all know for sure that 64bit is the future and that Arch will eventually reach it, so, is this line of thinking to appart from reallity?

Algol · 2005-01-30 02:00:00

While it isn't impossible, replacing evey binary and lib with a 64bit version and setting up the system to boot a 64bit aware kernel, I would say it would be easier (and with less risk to end up with a broken install) to just keep your applications on one partition and your data on another. When you want to install a 64bit OS you can just wipe the 32bit partition and put a 64bit version in its place.

The real hassle with mixing 32bit and 64bit applications is that all the libraries that they depend upon need to be of the same kind. If you update libc to 64bit, all 32bit applications that depend on that library will stop working. To solve this you either have to keep the libraries in different places, and use non-std names (as /lib64) or use a chrooted environment, having a false / partition that 32bit apps can live under.

Oops, it's quite late... hope this is enough to answers your question

sud_crow · 2005-01-30 16:16:48

More than enough!

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I guess i will colaborate with someone who is porting the apps tree to 64bit when i get the pc. Anyway as i read on another post, 64bit is not working that flawlessly so i can wait for a while, im actually buying a A64 to make my invest last longer

RedShift · 2005-01-30 20:01:01

I've ordered an AMD 64 machine, and I intent to build x32_64 packages.

B15HOP · 2005-02-19 01:39:58

As a gamer, I think its a shame that few games are made for 64bit. So I have little intention on going 64bit until this changes. When a stable 64bit OS is released, I might buy a new system. I think my xp2100 will do me for about another year at least. There is still a large price difference for a good 64bit system to. Further more, the latest 64bit processor is only about 2 times faster than my system. Maybe when there is a 5ghz A64, in real hz, not relative to intel speed, I will make the move. By then machines will need 4Gig of ram by default.

sarah31 · 2005-02-19 05:00:50

B15HOP wrote:

As a gamer, I think its a shame that few games are made for 64bit. So I have little intention on going 64bit until this changes. When a stable 64bit OS is released, I might buy a new system. I think my xp2100 will do me for about another year at least. There is still a large price difference for a good 64bit system to. Further more, the latest 64bit processor is only about 2 times faster than my system. Maybe when there is a 5ghz A64, in real hz, not relative to intel speed, I will make the move. By then machines will need 4Gig of ram by default.

The Gaming world will have to change their mode of thinking soon and have 64 bit compatbility. The 64bit architecture is the way things are going. It is a better architecture.

PRices for 64 bit machines have come down and will continue to. As for the "speed" thing. Speed talk is cheap and always has been. The only way you should notice any speed jumps ever is if you move from something like a p3 to a p4 or you move from an OS generally compiled to one more optimized for your system. I notice a huge speed difference moving from an old i386 optimized system to one the was i686 compiled.

Most speed and functionality depends more on RAM these days. Alot of people still try and use moder OSes with old RAM configurations. For example the new G5 iMacs come with a mere 256 MB RAM which really does limit what you can do and how fast you can do it. It was the same on my old PC. For the last three years the biggest boosts I ever gave to my machine was not processor but RAM.

B15HOP · 2005-02-22 04:26:05

Arn't those G5's pretty expensive? I would have thought that a G5 would come with at least 512 and go up from there. If I ever owned one it would need at least 1GB of memory especially to make it last a long time, ie make it worth its cost.

iphitus · 2005-02-22 09:55:24

Gaming world *is* changing their thinking..

UT2k4 has a 64 bit version for linux -- im not sure whether its the latest patch or the original that included it -- but i know it exists.

The gaming world wont go 64 bit till windows does. Theres no point/ way to provide windows 64 bit exe's when win is only 32 bit.

B15HOP · 2005-02-22 11:19:27

Yeah I bought the 2dvd ut2004 a while ago and it runs nice in linux. Have yet to try it in arch though as I have only played it in slackware. The game still didn't run as fast as it would in windows though. Although this might be different in arch. The textures look crisper in linux though.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-01-28 22:23:57

Arch for amd64

#2 2005-01-28 23:41:23

Re: Arch for amd64

#3 2005-01-29 00:56:52

Re: Arch for amd64

#4 2005-01-29 01:25:36

Re: Arch for amd64

#5 2005-01-29 01:50:51

Re: Arch for amd64

#6 2005-01-29 07:28:45

Re: Arch for amd64

#7 2005-01-29 08:25:38

Re: Arch for amd64

#8 2005-01-30 00:34:40

Re: Arch for amd64

#9 2005-01-30 02:00:00

Re: Arch for amd64

#10 2005-01-30 16:16:48

Re: Arch for amd64

#11 2005-01-30 20:01:01

Re: Arch for amd64

#12 2005-02-19 01:39:58

Re: Arch for amd64

#13 2005-02-19 05:00:50

Re: Arch for amd64

#14 2005-02-22 04:26:05

Re: Arch for amd64

#15 2005-02-22 09:55:24

Re: Arch for amd64

#16 2005-02-22 11:19:27

Re: Arch for amd64

Board footer