quick question: what release for c2d?

Message

ecce · Post by **ecce** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:53 pm

Sitting here with nothing but links2 to surf with, so please help me with this: Which release is best to download for a C2D? Will AMD64 work or is it ia64 the one I should pick?

Paapaa · Post by **Paapaa** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:07 pm

If you want 64-bit then AMD64 is the correct one. If you want 32-bit then use i686. There _might_ be problems with JMicron PATA controller with 2006.1 CD. Report back if you have problems.

floffe · Post by **floffe** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:23 pm

Don't try IA64, won't work. It's for Itaniums.

d2_racing · Post by **d2_racing** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:03 am

IMOO, you can just install a 32 bits i686 installation, because I think that the x86_64 can be pretty hard to install and also when you have a x86_64, I think that you can have both 32-bits and 64 bits application, so it can become a real mess to use.

Monkeh · Post by **Monkeh** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:38 am

d2_racing wrote:because I think that the x86_64 can be pretty hard to install

Not really. It's no different to x86..

and also when you have a x86_64, I think that you can have both 32-bits and 64 bits application, so it can become a real mess to use.

You can have both 32 and 64 bit programs, but it only becomes a mess if you make it one.

ecce · Post by **ecce** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:33 pm

System up now, and I have used it for about a week. I really can't complain about the speed, compiling code is lightning fast compared to my old AMD2400+. Two cores makes all the difference in the world!

64 bits brought some problems along just as expected:

* Sun java won't work out of the box. There's some doc about using the 32-bit version at java.com, but I'll guess that means Firefox must also be compiled 32-bit, and that means QT has to be 32-bit and so on (since calling 32-bit stuff from 64-bit applications doesn't usually work right?). That poor useless blackdown java thing works (kind of), but things look like S**T and firefox bails out all the time. I finally removed the plugin symlink and now soldier on without java support.

* Flash 9 doesn't like 64 bits either. Really annoying, a lot of web pages requires flash.

d2_racing · Post by **d2_racing** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:42 pm

That's why a 32 bits installation is more simple than a 64 bits installation.

aidanjt · Post by **aidanjt** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:45 pm

ecce wrote:System up now, and I have used it for about a week. I really can't complain about the speed, compiling code is lightning fast compared to my old AMD2400+. Two cores makes all the difference in the world!

64 bits brought some problems along just as expected:

* Sun java won't work out of the box. There's some doc about using the 32-bit version at java.com, but I'll guess that means Firefox must also be compiled 32-bit, and that means QT has to be 32-bit and so on (since calling 32-bit stuff from 64-bit applications doesn't usually work right?). That poor useless blackdown java thing works (kind of), but things look like S**T and firefox bails out all the time. I finally removed the plugin symlink and now soldier on without java support.

* Flash 9 doesn't like 64 bits either. Really annoying, a lot of web pages requires flash.

Hint.. nsplugin-wrapper

Lloeki · Post by **Lloeki** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:35 pm

nspw doesn't work with java. flash is fine with it though.