32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux - Suse

This is a discussion on 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux - Suse ; I'm thinking of running Open SuSE 11.0 on a Pentium E2180 dual core with 2GB RAM. The mainboard is a Gigabyte GA-73PVM S2 which has on board graphics - the GeForce 7100 plus nForce 630i chipset. Will the 64 bit ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

  1. 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    I'm thinking of running Open SuSE 11.0 on a Pentium E2180 dual core
    with 2GB RAM. The mainboard is a Gigabyte GA-73PVM S2 which has on
    board graphics - the GeForce 7100 plus nForce 630i chipset.

    Will the 64 bit version of Linux run faster on the above hardware, or
    will the 32 bit version - or is there any/much difference at all?

    I know 64 bit software can address more memory, but I won't be using
    this system as a server, just a home based PC, as a compliment to my
    sometimes unreliable Windows XP systems.

    I presume OpenSuSE 11.0 will support the above chipset and graphics. I
    tried using Ubuntu, but I am not impressed with it. Used SuSE many
    years ago, and found it easy to install and manage.

  2. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    redsheraton@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > I'm thinking of running Open SuSE 11.0 on a Pentium E2180 dual core
    > with 2GB RAM. The mainboard is a Gigabyte GA-73PVM S2 which has on
    > board graphics - the GeForce 7100 plus nForce 630i chipset.
    >
    > Will the 64 bit version of Linux run faster on the above hardware, or
    > will the 32 bit version - or is there any/much difference at all?


    Not much difference... usually.

    >
    > I know 64 bit software can address more memory, but I won't be using
    > this system as a server, just a home based PC, as a compliment to my
    > sometimes unreliable Windows XP systems.


    Ergo.. you have a choice. I don't think you'll reap any good
    benefit from 64bit.. .and there are a couple of issues there still
    that make you jump through some hoops.

    >
    > I presume OpenSuSE 11.0 will support the above chipset and graphics. I
    > tried using Ubuntu, but I am not impressed with it. Used SuSE many
    > years ago, and found it easy to install and manage.


    You may have to use the proprietary Nvidia driver... not sure.


  3. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Chris Cox wrote:
    >> Will the 64 bit version of Linux run faster on the above hardware, or
    >> will the 32 bit version - or is there any/much difference at all?

    >
    > Not much difference... usually.


    That is what I alsio keep hearing. My old 3Ghz 32 bit is however slower
    then my new 2.8Ghz 64 bit. OK, perhaps because one is also a quad core
    and serveral years newer. :-D

    >> I know 64 bit software can address more memory, but I won't be using
    >> this system as a server, just a home based PC, as a compliment to my
    >> sometimes unreliable Windows XP systems.

    >
    > Ergo.. you have a choice. I don't think you'll reap any good
    > benefit from 64bit.. .and there are a couple of issues there still
    > that make you jump through some hoops.


    I also keep hearing that and the sole problem I have encounterd till now
    is that some outdated things I was unable to build in 64 bit. The 32 bit
    binaries I have however still worked. Some go back as far as SuSE 9.x so
    it could very well be that some can not be rebuilt on 11.0 anyway.

    Also if 64 bit does not work, you can use 32 bit versions of the
    software.

    I have not had any of the alledged problems concerning flash or
    multimedia.

    >> I presume OpenSuSE 11.0 will support the above chipset and graphics. I
    >> tried using Ubuntu, but I am not impressed with it. Used SuSE many
    >> years ago, and found it easy to install and manage.

    >
    > You may have to use the proprietary Nvidia driver... not sure.


    http://tw.giga-byte.com/Products/Mot...ProductID=2734
    or http://tinyurl.com/6ng8fq tells me it is indeed NVidia
    http://en.opensuse.org/Nvidia for all info on that, but basically you
    click on the green Install button and let Suze worry her pretty head
    about how to get you pretty images. (Oh, wait, SUSE, not Suze R.)

    Anyway, pretty much just click on the Install button. That will add
    NVidea as a repo, install what you want and be done.

    What I needed to do afterwards was the following, but that is because of
    my specific situation with 2 cards and 3 screens.
    1) In `init 3` run sax2 -b /usr/share/sax/profile/NVidia_DualHead`
    2) `init 5 && exit`
    3) log in as user and run `sudo nvidea-settings` to add the third screen
    4) Restart X

    I have not tried it with skipping step 1 and 2. Could be that those were
    not needed. It is just hard to not use sax2 after so many years.

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Harvey Danger
    | Song : Diminishing Returns
    | Album : Little by Little

  4. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    houghi wrote:
    > Chris Cox wrote:

    ....
    >
    > I have not had any of the alledged problems concerning flash or
    > multimedia.


    Well, I can assure you they are NOT "alleged" problems, but
    very real existing issues... no developer would deny that.

    One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.

    However if 64bit is important (which I don't think it is
    in the case of the OP), then it "may" be worthwhile doing.
    However, like you, houghi, not everyone will see the problems...
    my feeling is that the problem will bite you exactly
    at the WRONG time (as problems usually do).

    >
    >>> I presume OpenSuSE 11.0 will support the above chipset and graphics. I
    >>> tried using Ubuntu, but I am not impressed with it. Used SuSE many
    >>> years ago, and found it easy to install and manage.

    >> You may have to use the proprietary Nvidia driver... not sure.

    >
    > http://tw.giga-byte.com/Products/Mot...ProductID=2734
    > or http://tinyurl.com/6ng8fq tells me it is indeed NVidia
    > http://en.opensuse.org/Nvidia for all info on that, but basically you
    > click on the green Install button and let Suze worry her pretty head
    > about how to get you pretty images. (Oh, wait, SUSE, not Suze R.)
    >
    > Anyway, pretty much just click on the Install button. That will add
    > NVidea as a repo, install what you want and be done.
    >
    > What I needed to do afterwards was the following, but that is because of
    > my specific situation with 2 cards and 3 screens.
    > 1) In `init 3` run sax2 -b /usr/share/sax/profile/NVidia_DualHead`
    > 2) `init 5 && exit`
    > 3) log in as user and run `sudo nvidea-settings` to add the third screen
    > 4) Restart X


    And don't forget sax2 -c 0 -m0=nvidia.... a FAQ for when
    sax2 dies... but I think that may be 64bit only.

    >
    > I have not tried it with skipping step 1 and 2. Could be that those were
    > not needed. It is just hard to not use sax2 after so many years.


    You probably also need the -c 0 element to get around the sax2
    issue. You can always specify -m0=nvidia,1=nvidia etc.

  5. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Chris Cox wrote:
    >> I have not had any of the alledged problems concerning flash or
    >> multimedia.

    >
    > Well, I can assure you they are NOT "alleged" problems, but
    > very real existing issues... no developer would deny that.


    Perhaps they exist from a developers point of view.

    > One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    > versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    > and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.


    Obviously when things are done wrong, things go wrong. I just used YaST
    to install what it needed.

    My guess is that problems might arise not so much by the beginner, who
    will just use YaST because it is so easy or by the advanced user who
    will just use YaST because it is so easy, but by the little more
    advanced person who tries to not use YaST.

    > However if 64bit is important (which I don't think it is
    > in the case of the OP), then it "may" be worthwhile doing.


    I would say that it wouldn't hurt, as long as you stick to YaST for
    installation as much as possible. e.g. the w32codecs-all are for a i586
    architecture. I did not look it up untill a minute ago.

    > However, like you, houghi, not everyone will see the problems...
    > my feeling is that the problem will bite you exactly
    > at the WRONG time (as problems usually do).


    That is generic with problems. Not just with these. I have had minor
    issues with certain things as well and for those things I just use the
    binaries (32 bit) I already have and worry my bald head on how or if
    those few go to 64 bit or not.

    > And don't forget sax2 -c 0 -m0=nvidia.... a FAQ for when
    > sax2 dies... but I think that may be 64bit only.


    OK.

    > You probably also need the -c 0 element to get around the sax2
    > issue. You can always specify -m0=nvidia,1=nvidia etc.


    I had one screen working, so I did not have an issue there. Now that I
    see the line above, instead of using the nvidia-settings program, I
    probably could have done -m0=nvidia,1=nvidia,2=nvidia and be done with
    it.

    The nice thing is that when I install 11.1 or 11.2, I will have
    absolutely forgotten this and won't be able to find it with dejanews, as
    that has become one lousy searchengine for Usenet.

    Anyway, I do have now three screens and would love many more and larger
    ones. :-D

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Santana
    | Song : Stand Up
    | Album : Marathon

  6. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:29:32 -0700, redsheraton typed this message:

    > I'm thinking of running Open SuSE 11.0 on a Pentium E2180 dual core with
    > 2GB RAM. The mainboard is a Gigabyte GA-73PVM S2 which has on board
    > graphics - the GeForce 7100 plus nForce 630i chipset.
    >
    > Will the 64 bit version of Linux run faster on the above hardware, or
    > will the 32 bit version - or is there any/much difference at all?
    >
    > I know 64 bit software can address more memory, but I won't be using
    > this system as a server, just a home based PC, as a compliment to my
    > sometimes unreliable Windows XP systems.
    >
    > I presume OpenSuSE 11.0 will support the above chipset and graphics. I
    > tried using Ubuntu, but I am not impressed with it. Used SuSE many years
    > ago, and found it easy to install and manage.


    I think you'll love Suse 11.x The default installs x86_64 so that your
    answer.

    32 vs 64 bit can't tell the performance difference but it's the same with
    dual processors. Once it gets going you can't tell the difference from a
    single v.dual cpu or 32bit v. 64bit, major cpu upgrades excluded.

    I do notice that usually both 32bit and x86_64bit modules are installed
    for the x86_64 platforms and I got slight headaches when I tried to
    update only the x86_64 packages.

  7. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Chris Cox wrote:

    >One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    >versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    >and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.


    What is involved with making a 32 bit executable work under
    64 bit openSUSE?

    I ask because I need to use one machine for heavy computations.
    And I feel that I'd really benefit from 64 bits because I have
    integer data needing 64 bits.

    But of course I also need bunches of other stuff, some of which
    might not work under a 64 bit OS.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans

  8. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    > Chris Cox wrote:
    >
    >>One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    >>versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    >>and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.

    >
    > What is involved with making a 32 bit executable work under
    > 64 bit openSUSE?


    There is a computer involved. That is about it. 32 bit software just
    works under a 64 bit system. And when you use YaST for installation, it
    will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : The Who
    | Song : 1921
    | Album : Tommy Deluxe CD1

  9. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    houghi wrote:

    > Paul J Gans wrote:
    >> Chris Cox wrote:
    >>
    >>>One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    >>>versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    >>>and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.

    >>
    >> What is involved with making a 32 bit executable work under
    >> 64 bit openSUSE?

    >
    > There is a computer involved. That is about it.


    Not quite

    > 32 bit software just works under a 64 bit system.


    It does. *If* you have the needed 32bit libraries installed.
    Otherwise, it will not work at all.

    > And when you use YaST for installation, it
    > will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.
    >


    Which does not always work, depending on where you got that RPM from.
    Sometimes, manual install via "rpm" inside a konsole is needed to see the
    missing dependencies.

    That said, my main machine runs 64bit since SuSE9x. And I had very few
    problems with 64 bits. But it is slightly easier to run a 32bit system
    --
    The UNIX Guru`s view of Sex:
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; umount; sleep


  10. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    > Chris Cox wrote:
    >
    >> One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    >> versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    >> and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.

    >
    > What is involved with making a 32 bit executable work under
    > 64 bit openSUSE?
    >
    > I ask because I need to use one machine for heavy computations.
    > And I feel that I'd really benefit from 64 bits because I have
    > integer data needing 64 bits.
    >
    > But of course I also need bunches of other stuff, some of which
    > might not work under a 64 bit OS.


    What I'm saying is that, for example, you might want to
    install 32bit Firefox just so flash and java applets work
    correctly.

    In Yast, it's easy, you can change the View to show
    the different architecture types out there for the files...
    provided that your installation source contains all of
    them... then you specifically select the i586 version instead
    of the x86_64 version of firefox. Then you install the
    i586 version of Java and the java plugin.

    (this is a real example of one that I HAVE to do)

  11. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    noi ance wrote:
    ....
    > 32 vs 64 bit can't tell the performance difference but it's the same with
    > dual processors. Once it gets going you can't tell the difference from a
    > single v.dual cpu or 32bit v. 64bit, major cpu upgrades excluded.


    That's definitely NOT true. With more than processors your machine
    can handle more things simultaneously. More apps open at one time
    all doing things without a hiccup. Machine will feel faster and
    smoother vs a single CPU. Note: many contemporary CPUs are multi-core,
    that while not as good as dedicated processors, it still will
    be felt.

  12. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Chris Cox wrote:
    > noi ance wrote:
    > ...
    >> 32 vs 64 bit can't tell the performance difference but it's the same
    >> with dual processors. Once it gets going you can't tell the
    >> difference from a single v.dual cpu or 32bit v. 64bit, major cpu
    >> upgrades excluded.

    >
    > That's definitely NOT true. With more than processors your machine
    > can handle more things simultaneously. More apps open at one time
    > all doing things without a hiccup. Machine will feel faster and
    > smoother vs a single CPU. Note: many contemporary CPUs are multi-core,
    > that while not as good as dedicated processors, it still will
    > be felt.


    Agreed, I went from a single core AMD XP3700 clocked at 2400MHz to a
    quad core Intel Q6600 also clocked at 2400MHz. The Q6600 runs rings
    around the XP3700 when running the same clock speed and always feels
    _way_ more responsive (even when it was running with 1Gb RAM in single
    channel mode due to one stick of Crucial Ballistix failing.... which is
    the same amount of RAM in the XP3700 has in dual channel mode!). That
    was before I overclocked the Q6600 to 3GHz and put 4Gb Corsair XMS2 RAM
    in it so it screams now......

  13. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:49:58 -0500, Chris Cox wrote:

    > Paul J Gans wrote:
    >> Chris Cox wrote:
    >>
    >>> One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit versions..
    >>> but that's pretty complicated for the novice user and when done
    >>> incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.

    >>
    >> What is involved with making a 32 bit executable work under 64 bit
    >> openSUSE?
    >>
    >> I ask because I need to use one machine for heavy computations. And I
    >> feel that I'd really benefit from 64 bits because I have integer data
    >> needing 64 bits.
    >>
    >> But of course I also need bunches of other stuff, some of which might
    >> not work under a 64 bit OS.

    >
    > What I'm saying is that, for example, you might want to install 32bit
    > Firefox just so flash and java applets work correctly.
    >
    > In Yast, it's easy, you can change the View to show the different
    > architecture types out there for the files... provided that your
    > installation source contains all of them... then you specifically select
    > the i586 version instead of the x86_64 version of firefox. Then you
    > install the i586 version of Java and the java plugin.
    >
    > (this is a real example of one that I HAVE to do)


    With openSUSE 11.0 the 64bit firefox works fine with flash and java and
    its plugin java-1_6_0-openjdk-plugin-1.2_b09-10
    Both are as supplied with openSUSE and not installed via adobe or sun
    sites.

  14. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> And when you use YaST for installation, it
    >> will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.

    >
    > Which does not always work, depending on where you got that RPM from.
    > Sometimes, manual install via "rpm" inside a konsole is needed to see the
    > missing dependencies.


    Could you give an example?

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Boudewijn de Groot
    | Song : Strand
    | Album : Wonderkind aan het strand (CD 1: Eb)

  15. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    houghi wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>> And when you use YaST for installation, it
    >>> will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.

    >>
    >> Which does not always work, depending on where you got that RPM from.
    >> Sometimes, manual install via "rpm" inside a konsole is needed to see the
    >> missing dependencies.

    >
    > Could you give an example?
    >
    > houghi


    Sometimes the new RPMs from Pacman need libraries which Yast does not
    resolve properly. If you install directly in a konsole, you get to see the
    msiing libraries directly and can search for them.
    I have encountered several times that Pacman had new apps for which the
    needed libs were neither on the DVD nor on Pacman. I had to search them and
    install them first.
    This happened more often with 64bit apps than with 32bit ones.
    Otherwise, apart from some minor problems like missing 64bit Flash, 64bit
    runs very well, and depending on application can be significant faster.
    This happens especially in multimedia apps
    --
    Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


  16. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >
    > houghi wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>> And when you use YaST for installation, it
    >>>> will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.
    >>>
    >>> Which does not always work, depending on where you got that RPM from.
    >>> Sometimes, manual install via "rpm" inside a konsole is needed to see the
    >>> missing dependencies.

    >>
    >> Could you give an example?
    >>
    >> houghi

    >
    > Sometimes the new RPMs from Pacman need libraries which Yast does not
    > resolve properly.


    Could you give an example?

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Midnight Oil
    | Song : forgotten years
    | Album : Diesel and Dust

  17. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    houghi wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> houghi wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>>> And when you use YaST for installation, it
    >>>>> will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.
    >>>>
    >>>> Which does not always work, depending on where you got that RPM from.
    >>>> Sometimes, manual install via "rpm" inside a konsole is needed to see
    >>>> the missing dependencies.
    >>>
    >>> Could you give an example?
    >>>
    >>> houghi

    >>
    >> Sometimes the new RPMs from Pacman need libraries which Yast does not
    >> resolve properly.

    >
    > Could you give an example?
    >
    > houghi


    If I remember correctly, the last Amarok version for SuSE 10.3 had those
    problems.

    --
    All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
    parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
    can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means,
    do not use a hammer.


  18. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > If I remember correctly, the last Amarok version for SuSE 10.3 had those
    > problems.


    The signature below is done by looking at what Amarok is playing. That
    song is mp3. I am on 64bit. I admit I am on 11.0 As I am not intending
    on installing 10.3 on tjis machine and you seem not to be 100% sure, is
    there anybody who can confirm there are issues with Amarok on a 10.3 64
    bit system? If possible only those people who had a problem or still do
    have problem while it was installed using either YaST or zypper.

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Jethro Tull
    | Song : Some Day The Sun Won't Shine For You
    | Album : This Was

  19. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    On 2008-09-07, houghi wrote:
    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> If I remember correctly, the last Amarok version for SuSE 10.3 had those
    >> problems.

    >
    > The signature below is done by looking at what Amarok is playing. That
    > song is mp3. I am on 64bit. I admit I am on 11.0 As I am not intending
    > on installing 10.3 on tjis machine and you seem not to be 100% sure, is
    > there anybody who can confirm there are issues with Amarok on a 10.3 64
    > bit system? If possible only those people who had a problem or still do
    > have problem while it was installed using either YaST or zypper.
    >
    > houghi


    Amarok is fine here.

    But Kaffeine won't play anything.
    The version is 0.8.6-54.1
    There's version 0.8.7-0.pm.1 available at Packman.

    Normally the pm:s are good at multimedia.
    Now, this can't be updated normally because it requires
    libxine1-1.15-0.pm.1.x86_64

    And "There's no installabel providers"

    With YaST and Zypper.

    But I've left it alone, these things tend to sort out during time...

    Mplayer VLC and Smplayer work just fine.
    --
    Vahis
    http://waxborg.servepics.com
    Congressman Wilson has an expression:
    "You can teach them to type, but you can't teach them to grow tits."

  20. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    houghi wrote:
    >Paul J Gans wrote:
    >> Chris Cox wrote:
    >>
    >>>One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    >>>versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    >>>and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.

    >>
    >> What is involved with making a 32 bit executable work under
    >> 64 bit openSUSE?


    >There is a computer involved. That is about it. 32 bit software just
    >works under a 64 bit system. And when you use YaST for installation, it
    >will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.


    Be serious. There is more to it than that. The machine
    operates in either 32 bit or 64 bit modes. The OS is
    64 bit. So I would imagine that there is a fair amount
    of switching back and forth when system calls are made,
    and they are made frequently in most programs.

    There are other ways to do it, of course. I was asking for
    information on how it is really done.

    Magic isn't the answer.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast