Andrew Robinson wrote:
Well I made the rough decision last night and switched back to 32b.
After reading some benchmarks it didn't look like 64b was going to
benefit me much. This is a home desktop computer so the 32b will fit
me fine. Just a shame to give up the extra functionality.
Perhaps in a few years I may try 64b again when more libraries and
software bundles are packaged as 64b. Until then I thought that it
would be nice if things "just worked". I maintain a couple of
slackware boxes, and it would be nice to finally have one box that is
extremely low maintenance.
32bit may indeed be the way to go for you - for now.
I still recommend using a 64-bit kernel, while having everything else
32-bit.
First, you get a small speedup of the kernel itself. This is hardly
noticable as the PC shouldn't spend much time on the kernel anyway.
Much more important is that the 64-bit kernel can hand out more
memory to the processes than a 32-bit kernel can, because it hides
itself outside the 32-bit memory range that the applications live in.
This could make a difference if you have 2GB or more memory,
the difference between swapping and _not_ swapping can
be felt sometimes. Of course, only if you have a process
that need so much memory.
Helge Hafting
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
