On 12/18/12 00:13, Erich Dollansky wrote:
Hi,
wasn't the same question here a few days ago?
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:16:36 -0500
Aryeh Friedman aryeh.fried...@gmail.com wrote:
Ever since 8.X (my system is now 9.1-RC3 [done via csup]) been using
i386 with the following main ports:
Let me
Ever since 8.X (my system is now 9.1-RC3 [done via csup]) been using
i386 with the following main ports:
x11-wm/xfce4
www/firefox
www/linux-f10-flashplugin11
editors/libreoffice
www/tomcat-7
www/apace22
devel/aegis (I am the maintainer)
devel/fhist
devel/cook
java/openjdk6
Hi,
wasn't the same question here a few days ago?
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:16:36 -0500
Aryeh Friedman aryeh.fried...@gmail.com wrote:
Ever since 8.X (my system is now 9.1-RC3 [done via csup]) been using
i386 with the following main ports:
x11-wm/xfce4
yes.
www/firefox
Yes.
The problem is, it gets recreated upon updating from source.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/i386-vs-amd64-tp5765012p5765488.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd
Even that I was aware of that, I've just lost track of it. Thanks for simple
solution.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/i386-vs-amd64-tp5765012p5765489.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Bill Tillman btillma...@yahoo.com wrote:
i386 will not see anything above 4 GB
Actually you *can* give access to 4Gb RAM for your system: PAE allows you
to use 36 bits instead of 32 to address your memory (and supported till
Pentium Pro) but that is only
How does the system know what is OS and what is 32-bit apps?
OS works in kernel space while application is not.
PAE affects paging system allowing software to address 2^36 bytes of memory.
You can access it in kernel space, but user space applications are limited
to 2^32 bytes of virtual memory
On 11/30/12 15:40, Thomas Mueller wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Bill Tillman btillma...@yahoo.com wrote:
i386 will not see anything above 4 GB
Actually you *can* give access to 4Gb RAM for your system: PAE allows you
to use 36 bits instead of 32 to address your memory (and
From: Fleuriot Damien m...@my.gd
To: birdf...@yahoo.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: i386 vs amd64
On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:36 PM, mike miskulin birdf...@yahoo.com wrote:
About to build
If it was from me, my system is without 32bit compat
whatsoever, and this is not default setting on amd64.
Maybe on def. amd64 there are no problems, I don't
know, nobody replied to my thread.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/i386-vs-amd64
Hello,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Bill Tillman btillma...@yahoo.com wrote:
i386 will not see anything above 4 GB
Actually you *can* give access to 4Gb RAM for your system: PAE allows you
to use 36 bits instead of 32 to address your memory (and supported till
Pentium Pro) but that is
About to build a replacement system for an older i386 setup. A few
years ago I had tried the amd64 port on it and found it was frustrating
as things that just worked on i386 did not on amd64. IIRC ports were
large annoyance too.
Now I have a new system with 8GB, etc,etc and wonder if I am best
On Nov 28, 2012, at 6:36 PM, mike miskulin birdf...@yahoo.com wrote:
About to build a replacement system for an older i386 setup. A few
years ago I had tried the amd64 port on it and found it was frustrating
as things that just worked on i386 did not on amd64. IIRC ports were
large
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, mike miskulin wrote:
About to build a replacement system for an older i386 setup. A few
years ago I had tried the amd64 port on it and found it was frustrating
as things that just worked on i386 did not on amd64. IIRC ports were
large annoyance too.
Now I have a new
What port was that ?
I've never had a *single* problem due to using amd64 over i386.
Well I have to apologize, I've reached senility! My past bad experience
was with netbsd amd64 afterwhich I bailed and went to FreeBSD i386
(thanks google).
But I guess the basic question remains - are
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:53:26 -0500, mike miskulin wrote:
But I guess the basic question remains - are there any considerations in
regards ports, linux emulation, etc that would sway me to remain i386?
The only problem might be if you want to use wine. As it has
been said, there are binary
On 11/28/12 18:49, Warren Block wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, mike miskulin wrote:
About to build a replacement system for an older i386 setup. A few
years ago I had tried the amd64 port on it and found it was frustrating
as things that just worked on i386 did not on amd64. IIRC ports were
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:25:59 +0100
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:53:26 -0500, mike miskulin wrote:
But I guess the basic question remains - are there any
considerations in regards ports, linux emulation, etc that would
sway me to remain i386?
The only problem
howdy, y'all ---
these may be stupid questions and, if so, i am prepared to slap my forehead
with the palm of my hand.
i recently acquired my first batch of intel cpus with 64_bit integer registers
[ celeron 440 ],
specifically for the 16 registers and the potential for a truly_gargantuan
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:51 PM, spellberg_robert email...@emailrob.com wrote:
q: if i install an amd64 version on an intel_64 platform,
am i restricted to 16 64_bit registers and 48_bit pointers or
can i compile for both cpu_models
[ perhaps, with nothing more
hmmm ..., you did not answer the question that i asked.
per your statement, on i386, amd64 or both ?
David Brodbeck wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:51 PM, spellberg_robert email...@emailrob.com wrote:
q:if i install an amd64 version on an intel_64 platform,
am i restricted to
On a 64-bit system, if you build a binary with the -m32 flag, it
should run on both i386 and x86-64 systems. A binary built with -m64
will only run on x86-64. Does that help?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 1:45 PM, spellberg_robert email...@emailrob.com wrote:
hmmm ..., you did not answer the question
spellberg_robert wrote:
[snip]
consider a dvd_image [ to pick an approach ] of a release to be found on
ftp.freebsd.org.
q:if the release_name includes the string i386,
am i restricted to 8 32_bit registers and 32_bit pointers,
notwithstanding its installation
In the last episode (Oct 04), David Brodbeck said:
On a 64-bit system, if you build a binary with the -m32 flag, it
should run on both i386 and x86-64 systems. A binary built with -m64
will only run on x86-64. Does that help?
Actually, -m32 on amd64 won't generate usable binaries, since
aha !
this relates to what i found in machine/types.h,
on my existing i386 version of freebsd on my intel_64 hardware platform.
i will look into the questions archive.
meanwhile, back at the ranch,
does this mean that i need the amd64 version of freebsd to get the right
headers ?
Dan
well, i looked at questions back to the beginning of august.
on aug_09 i found a thread that suggests the following questions.
for a given release of freebsd,
q:is it that the version labeled i386 contains only 32_bit headers and
source,
which creates the 32_bit version of
In the last episode (Oct 05), spellberg_robert said:
well, i looked at questions back to the beginning of august.
on aug_09 i found a thread that suggests the following questions.
You might want to just use i386 and amd64 instead of making up your own
terminology (i_386, intel_64, amd_64,
27 matches
Mail list logo
