I agree, I haven't really had any problems running 64-bit with Gentoo. When dealing with non-free binary stuff, I just run the 32-bit version of it. No big deal.
On 8/22/07, Daniel Lenski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Vince Weaver wrote: > >> Unless you've got some sort of compelling reason to run a 64-bit OS, > I'd > >> stick with 32-bit. I've heard most of the compat issues have been > ironed > >> out, but I always seem to hear about something or the other not > working. > > > > Like what? > > > > I've been running 64-bit Linux on various machines for over 5 years > > with no problems to speak of. > I agree whole-heartedly. I have no idea where this FUD of having > problems with 64-bit Linux comes from... maybe people assume that since > 64-bit Windows is rife with driver problems and incompatibilities, Linux > must be having the same problems. I have been running Debian and Ubuntu > on x86_64 for over two years with no problems. *ALL* the free software > works perfectly, *ALL* the drivers work, I have *NEVER* encountered a > bug that seemed to be caused by using the 64-bit version. > > If you have >860MB of RAM you should run 64-bit just because you will > > get a performance boost. And if this is the x86_64 architecture you > > talk of when you say "64-bit" you'll also probably get a boost due to > > the extra registers available. > Yes, this is absolutely true. Linux has a concept of high memory, which > means that it has to go through extra page-table indirection, and takes > a performance hit, when accessing memory above a certain limit imposed > by the architecture and/or the Linux memory map. > > And the extra registers of 64-bit CPUs are very nice too. Having double > the general-purpose hardware registers undoubtedly makes for more > efficient code. It's one of the chief innovations of the RISC > processors that they included many registers and thus reduced cache and > memory access, and enabled greater compiler code-generation flexibility. > > It is hard for me to gauge, but I would say my Athlon 64 box runs about > 10-20% faster under 64-bit Linux than with 32-bit Linux (I carry around > a USB stick with 32-bit Debian on it, and have tried running this on my > home computer to compare it). > > It is true that if you use binary drivers (like nvidia, nidswrapper, > > etc), want to run proprietary plugins (like the flash plugin) or run > > other proprietary software you might have issues. If you tend to run > > mostly free software you should be fine. > Actually, I have had no problems at all with the NVidia or ATI drivers > under 64-bit Ubuntu... at least, no problems that could be blamed on > 64-bit as opposed to the general crappiness of the closed-source > drivers. I use native wireless drivers, which work flawlessly in 64-bit > mode... even the bcm43xx reverse-engineered driver for Broadcom-based > cards works great on my Turion 64 X2 laptop. > > The closed-source Flash plugin is just about the *only* thing that has > no 64-bit version. And that is entirely Adobe's fault. However, you > can use 32-bit Firefox under a 64-bit distro, so that you can use the > Flash plugin. Some distributions make this really easy to do. > Personally, I don't like Flash at all. I only want to be able to watch > YouTube clips! Fortunately, the latest versions of the open-source > Gnash plugin (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) can display YouTube > movies correctly, including sound. So now that I can watch YouTube > videos, I don't really care about any other Flash stuff that isn't > possibel yet. > > So, basically, I would say that 64-bit Linux does *everything* just as > well as 32-bit Linux, or better. The ONLY exception is Flash. And if > you must use the proprietary Flash plugin, you can get the 32-bit > version working under 64-bit Linux. So there's pretty much no downside, > and a lot of performance advantage. As well as the ability to upgrade > to >4gb RAM :-) > > Dan Lenski >
