What is the status of Arch64

wolk · 2010-04-03 13:27:02

What is the status of arch64 is it as stable as 32 bit arch distribution?
What possibilities there are that makes arch64 able of running 32bit programs(especially 32b firefox with flash plugin)?

tgc · 2010-04-03 14:09:54

Take a look at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch64_FAQ.
Flash is available in a 64 bit version, but it is still alpha/beta, though I think it works fine. You can use the 32 bit version with the nspluginwrapper if you wish.

flamelab · 2010-04-03 14:22:38

Arch64 is excellent and very stable. No reasons not to use it.

creatid · 2010-04-03 14:28:28

I am using 64bit firefox + flash without any issues. No 32bit software at all on my boxes.
The only thing that I can't use yet is Skype. I can live without it because I can use my PSP for that :-)
And Wine has no 64bit version yet, but so far I have no need for it.

So for me the status of Arch x86_64 is: all systems go!

Pierre · 2010-04-03 14:36:05

I would even say: x86_64 is the prefered platform for Arch.

Dieter@be · 2010-04-03 16:03:45

Pierre wrote:

I would even say: x86_64 is the prefered platform for Arch.

why is that?

i_love_penguins · 2010-04-03 16:15:55

flamelab wrote:

Arch64 is excellent and very stable. No reasons not to use it.

I second that.

flamelab · 2010-04-03 16:16:34

Dieter@be wrote:

Pierre wrote:
I would even say: x86_64 is the prefered platform for Arch.
why is that?

It shows the full potential of the distribution.

JohannesSM64 · 2010-04-03 16:20:50

creatid wrote:

I am using 64bit firefox + flash without any issues. No 32bit software at all on my boxes.
The only thing that I can't use yet is Skype. I can live without it because I can use my PSP for that :-)
And Wine has no 64bit version yet, but so far I have no need for it.
So for me the status of Arch x86_64 is: all systems go!

bin32-wine
bin32-skype

wolk · 2010-04-03 16:55:07

And if i downloaded some 32bit binary file would i be able to run it without any problems? How i run such applications under arch?
In gentoo i had some compatibility packages and after installing them i was able to run applications in "normal" way no matter it was 32b or 64b.
Is it possible in arch?

Last edited by wolk (2010-04-03 16:55:54)

insane_alien · 2010-04-03 17:24:25

yes you can run 32-bit applications in 64-bit arch if you have the lib32's this is all on the Arch 64-bit FAQ

wolk · 2010-04-04 08:31:28

thanks guys for your answers.

ehlo · 2010-04-04 12:22:07

Perfectly stable here too . I wish the remaining proprietary apps (Skype, Adobe Reader) would bring out 64bit binaries so I can remove the extra lib32 libraries

.:B:. · 2010-04-04 13:33:29

Pierre wrote:

I would even say: x86_64 is the prefered platform for Arch.

I'm very curious about your statement too .

Busata · 2010-04-04 17:12:11

I assume he means it's good that people start using x86_64 more & more, so that the support for it grows (not that it's bad now, but some apps still drag behind...).

Here it works "ok", just not too happy about skype not working all that good, webcam was flipped, so needed 32 bits libraries for v4l, not getting it to work with pulseaudio either, so it's a bit meh. Everything else works superb & superfast tho, happy I left ubuntu behind for it!

toofishes · 2010-04-04 17:20:32

.:B:. wrote:

Pierre wrote:
I would even say: x86_64 is the prefered platform for Arch.
I'm very curious about your statement too .

I would say 75% or more of us developers use x86_64 at this point as their primary platform, meaning it probably gets more direct attention than i686.

pogeymanz · 2010-04-04 17:35:45

Busata wrote:

I assume he means it's good that people start using x86_64 more & more, so that the support for it grows (not that it's bad now, but some apps still drag behind...).
Here it works "ok", just not too happy about skype not working all that good, webcam was flipped, so needed 32 bits libraries for v4l, not getting it to work with pulseaudio either, so it's a bit meh. Everything else works superb & superfast tho, happy I left ubuntu behind for it!

I agree. We (all computer users) should have been using 64bit software since AMD started making 64bit processors.

creatid · 2010-04-04 21:25:42

JohannesSM64 wrote:

bin32-wine
bin32-skype

I'm aware of them, but because I have no urgent need for both I prefer to wait for the 64bit versions.:cool:

Themaister · 2010-04-09 19:50:20

I'd say x86_64 is preferred. I have never had any spesific issues with the x86_64 version.

franzrogar · 2010-04-09 21:21:16

As I said in another thread, x86_64 is the best.

I've had no issues (neither minor nor major ones) at all.

frigaut · 2010-04-10 00:04:07

yes, it works great. I run the 64 bits flash, and 32 bits skype with the 32 bits libraries.
no significant issue. very stable. and, in my experience, faster than 32bits for heavy numerical calculations (even though you may not care and YMMV), which is important for my work.

lasu1 · 2010-04-10 03:38:35

Yeah, I use x86_64, no crashes/stability issues that I didn't cause. I haven't benchmarked my system to compare between 32 - 64 bit; but, it seems blazingly fast for me (no waiting, ever, compile times are quick, and no performance issues in games through wine.) I recommend Arch x86_64.

skottish · 2010-04-10 04:15:25

I've been running 64 bit for years and dropped most 32 bit libraries a long time ago. I have three explicitly installed 32 bit libraries on this machine right now and two of them are dependencies of neroAacEnc. (It'd be nice if there was some equivalent replacement for that, but there isn't.) The main thing that people may want to consider is the larger memory requirements. Expect a significant difference of memory usage at every level with 64 bit.

franzrogar · 2010-04-10 10:59:28

skottish wrote:

The main thing that people may want to consider is the larger memory requirements. Expect a significant difference of memory usage at every level with 64 bit.

Well... in honour of truth... I used to have 1GB always in use with my programs in Ubuntu64 and now I'm running about 400MB... Which is... less than half!

So... I'm the exception to the rule

Now, seriously, if you just load what you need, then, you'll only see lesser memory requirements

martin77 · 2010-05-15 13:05:20

creatid wrote:

I am using 64bit firefox + flash without any issues. No 32bit software at all on my boxes.
The only thing that I can't use yet is Skype. I can live without it because I can use my PSP for that :-)
And Wine has no 64bit version yet, but so far I have no need for it.
So for me the status of Arch x86_64 is: all systems go!

frigaut wrote:

yes, it works great. I run the 64 bits flash, and 32 bits skype with the 32 bits libraries.
no significant issue. very stable. and, in my experience, faster than 32bits for heavy numerical calculations (even though you may not care and YMMV), which is important for my work.

Guys:
Following The Arch Way I usually do my research and try to resolve my own problems without bothering you with n00b questions, this way when I eventually found the way to fix that problems I post the explaination here so other green users like me can have it a little easier.
Said that, I'm burned about making flash work (and usually multimedia) ok in KDE SC (4.4.3) on a Arch x64 system.

Flash movies play well but with no audio when in GNOME -the other DE/WM I tried- flash run smooth. Any idea!? I installed flashplugin packet from extra, would help in any way using ndiswrapper?

Running a fresh install of Arch x64 + KDE SC - installed yesterday, still tweaking some things.

Last edited by martin77 (2010-05-15 17:03:46)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-04-03 13:27:02

What is the status of Arch64

#2 2010-04-03 14:09:54

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#3 2010-04-03 14:22:38

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#4 2010-04-03 14:28:28

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#5 2010-04-03 14:36:05

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#6 2010-04-03 16:03:45

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#7 2010-04-03 16:15:55

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#8 2010-04-03 16:16:34

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#9 2010-04-03 16:20:50

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#10 2010-04-03 16:55:07

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#11 2010-04-03 17:24:25

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#12 2010-04-04 08:31:28

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#13 2010-04-04 12:22:07

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#14 2010-04-04 13:33:29

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#15 2010-04-04 17:12:11

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#16 2010-04-04 17:20:32

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#17 2010-04-04 17:35:45

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#18 2010-04-04 21:25:42

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#19 2010-04-09 19:50:20

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#20 2010-04-09 21:21:16

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#21 2010-04-10 00:04:07

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#22 2010-04-10 03:38:35

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#23 2010-04-10 04:15:25

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#24 2010-04-10 10:59:28

Re: What is the status of Arch64

#25 2010-05-15 13:05:20

Re: What is the status of Arch64

Board footer