>
>> On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:06 AM, Brett Lymn wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:44:20PM -0500, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I implied nothing of the sort. I asked a question (read my original
post):
>>>
Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and
> lsst these ramblings lead someone down a wrong path...
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:21:03AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > I would install i386-wine on a separate i386 installation, so even if that
> > doesn't work when mounted on /compat/i386 from amd64, it might still work
> > fro
lsst these ramblings lead someone down a wrong path...
On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:21:03AM +, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
> I would install i386-wine on a separate i386 installation, so even if that
> doesn't work when mounted on /compat/i386 from amd64, it might still work
> from i386 standalo
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 02:55:51PM +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> > 1) If Wine requires kernel support that is only available on i386, how
> > would a /compat/i386 solve the problem?
> It won't. I believe the main blocker is still the handling of GDT/LDT in
> the kernel. Before I get ac
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 02:55:51PM +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>
> 1) If Wine requires kernel support that is only available on i386, how
> would a /compat/i386 solve the problem?
>
It won't. I believe the main blocker is still the handling of GDT/LDT in
the kernel. Before I get accused of be
from Ottavio Caruso:
> I have two questions:
> 1) If Wine requires kernel support that is only available on i386, how
> would a /compat/i386 solve the problem?
> 2) Wouldn't there be then two layers of emulation, ie 64 to 32, and 32
> to Windows? Is it worth the pain?
I would try this on FreeBS
On 3 February 2014 06:46, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I read the FreeBSD wiki page for i386-wine and saw that building under amd64
> required building an i386 installation to /compat/i386, so I figured it made
> more sense to install to a separate partition or removable disk such as USB,
> and the
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
> > > > FYI no wine on latest FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE amd64
> > > > cd /usr/ports/emulators/wine ; make
> > > > ===> wine-1.6.1,1 is only for i386, while you are running
> > > > amd64.
> > > > cd /usr/ports/emulators/wine-devel ; make
> > > > ===> wine-devel-
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 11:18:57AM -, David Lord wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2014 at 5:46, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
> .
>
>
> > I've built modular (pkgsrc) xorg, and it either doesn't
> > start at all, or mouse pointer moves horizontally but not
> > up and down, meaning crippled.
>
>
> I had th
On 3 Feb 2014 at 5:46, Thomas Mueller wrote:
.
> I've built modular (pkgsrc) xorg, and it either doesn't
> start at all, or mouse pointer moves horizontally but not
> up and down, meaning crippled.
I had that with pkgsrc-2013Q3 but gnome worked ok after I
refetched sources and built all
> > > FYI no wine on latest FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE amd64
> > > cd /usr/ports/emulators/wine ; make
> > > ===> wine-1.6.1,1 is only for i386, while you are running amd64.
> > > cd /usr/ports/emulators/wine-devel ; make
> > > ===> wine-devel-1.7.8,1 is only for i386, while you are run
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
> > > Not to argue that i386/PAE is just as functional as amd64, but having an
> > > i386 installation is useful for some applications that only work on
> > > 32-bit, such
> > as wine, though I believe there is early development for 64-bit.
>
> > > I want to test and hope
> I have a full Win 7 64 bit installation on wd0.
>
> Office 14 is in /Program Files (x86)/Microsoft Office/Office14/,
> therefore I assume this is a 32 bit application.
>
> Would I be able to run it under Wine if I had a 32 bit installation
> of Netbsd?
Given that wine by itself works as one wa
On 2 February 2014 11:18, Volkmar Seifert wrote:
> Erm...excuse me, but how could a 32-bit system run a 64-bit application?
This is what I try to ascertain by asking such a question.
> tl;dr: No, it's not possible due to the architecture's design.
I have a full Win 7 64 bit installation on wd0.
> > Not to argue that i386/PAE is just as functional as amd64, but having an
> > i386 installation is useful for some applications that only work on 32-bit,
> > such
> as wine, though I believe there is early development for 64-bit.
> > I want to test and hopefully benefit from MS-Windows functi
> Would Wine/i386 run native 64 bit Windows programs?
Erm...excuse me, but how could a 32-bit system run a 64-bit application?
Wine on an i386-system is restricted to the 32-bit world. The 64-bit
world isn't just "doubly sized pointers" and "doubled number of
bits for memory address space".
There
On 25 January 2014 16:13, Michael van Elst wrote:
> ottavio.car...@googlemail.com (Ottavio Caruso) writes:
>
>>Unless you're going to be using applications that don't compile on
>>x64, then I would go for the amd64.
>
>>The only example of application that I wanted to install from binary
>>on amd6
Hi, Reference:
> From: "Thomas Mueller"
> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:38:40 + (UTC)
"Thomas Mueller" wrote:
>
> Excerpt from Brett Lymn:
>
> > In that case, why mention PAE at all? There was pretty clear advice
> > prior to your email recommending just running amd64. Your me
Excerpt from Brett Lymn:
> In that case, why mention PAE at all? There was pretty clear advice
> prior to your email recommending just running amd64. Your message
> looked to be implying that i386/PAE was just as functional as amd64.
> This is not the case.
Not to argue that i386/PAE is just a
Brett,
Makes sense. Maybe I did over-react. But Thor's virtual girlfriend comment
pushed me over the edge so I'm taking a break from NetBSD and replies from
NetBSD.org will bounce.
Thanks,
Jason M.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:06 AM, Brett Lymn wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 20
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:44:20PM -0500, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
>
> I implied nothing of the sort. I asked a question (read my original post):
>
> >Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and
> >thus can access >2GB of RAM?
>
Roght. Which is, in itself, rather
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:53:59AM +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> On 30 January 2014 05:33, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > port? don't you mean architecture? :-) SCNR
>
> To be pedantic for pedantry sake, you run a port on your PC, not an
> architecture. Here you go, my nonsense contribution of the d
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 04:07:17PM -0500, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:26:13AM -0500, Jason Mitchell wrote:
> >>
> >> Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and
> >> thus can access >2GB of RAM?
> >>
> >
> > You are still limited to a 32bit
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 05:30:47PM -0500, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
>> >
>
> Quote all of it:
>
You are still limited to a 32bit address space in the process so you
still can't go over the 4Gb memory limit and that is divided between
kernel and user space hence why a process gets
On 30 January 2014 05:33, Chris Bannister wrote:
> port? don't you mean architecture? :-) SCNR
To be pedantic for pedantry sake, you run a port on your PC, not an
architecture. Here you go, my nonsense contribution of the day.
--
Ottavio
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 05:30:47PM -0500, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
> >
Quote all of it:
>>> You are still limited to a 32bit address space in the process so you
>>> still can't go over the 4Gb memory limit and that is divided between
>>> kernel and user space hence why a process gets 2(ish)Gb.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 05:30:47PM -0500, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
> talking about, but his writing was unclear and the point made no sense
> given the original thread. If other users have questions about what port
> to run on a laptop or desktop and read this thread it would just confuse
port?
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 15:07, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:26:13AM -0500, Jason Mitchell wrote:
Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE
and
thus can access >2GB of RAM?
>>>
>>> You are still limited to a 32bit add
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:19:23PM -0600, Dave Huang wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 15:07, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:26:13AM -0500, Jason Mitchell wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and
> >>> thus can access
On Jan 29, 2014, at 15:07, jmitc...@bigjar.com wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:26:13AM -0500, Jason Mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>> Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and
>>> thus can access >2GB of RAM?
>>>
>>
>> You are still limited to a 32bit address space in
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:26:13AM -0500, Jason Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and
>> thus can access >2GB of RAM?
>>
>
> You are still limited to a 32bit address space in the process so you
> still can't go over the 4Gb memory limit and
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:26:13AM -0500, Jason Mitchell wrote:
>
> Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and thus
> can access >2GB of RAM?
>
You are still limited to a 32bit address space in the process so you
still can't go over the 4Gb memory limit and that is
> On Jan 25, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Volkmar Seifert wrote:
>
>
> Hello there,
>
>> Still wonder if I should try the NetBSD/amd64.
>
> The only reason to install a 32-bit OS on an otherwise 64-bit capable
> hardware would be, if the system-ram is 2GB or less.
> Otherwise, you'd waste resources a
Thanks - I didnt know that. It works without any special tricks, just
the default setup. Click ClickClick (yep, thats it!)
Just remember to really press both buttons at the same time. To me, it
quite often happens that one or the other button is pressed first, which
can lead to...well, unexp
From: Berger Steffan [140127 16:03]
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 04:53:16PM +0100, herbert langhans wrote:
> The only thing what annoys me is the leak of a three button mouse (that
> touchpad under the keyboard I mean). Was standard on older Thinkpads and
> its gone on all the new l
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 04:53:16PM +0100, herbert langhans wrote:
> The only thing what annoys me is the leak of a three button mouse (that
> touchpad under the keyboard I mean). Was standard on older Thinkpads and
> its gone on all the new laptops. But thats another story ...
as far as I am conce
Wrong on account of Windows 8.1 being 64-bit only. You are mistaken with
server 2012 and up, which are only 64-bit.
Otherwise at this time and age I fail to see reason to use the 32-bit
versions on anything modern enough (I only have a couple of old PCs left
over to die in peace which are not 64-b
from John Nemeth :
>Released versions of NetBSD have okay support for GPT. -current
> has much better support for GPT. The intention is to backport the
> improvements after they are complete.
>Currently, NetBSD can boot with a GPT in CSM mode, but not
> full UEFI mode. Full support fo
On Jan 25, 3:12pm, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
} On 25 January 2014 14:58, herbert langhans wrote:
} > The BIOS legacy mode I havent heard of yet (my equipment is quite
} > vintage). Does it mean a non-legacy mode computer doesnt boot anything
} > but MS-stuff? Or some funny partition table you cannot
> Still wonder if I should try the NetBSD/amd64.
Given the choice, I would always suggest amd64. As Volkmar said, most
software runs a bit faster in 64-bit mode due to the higher number of
CPU registers. The gain is often around 10%. There may be a slight
increase in memory usage but that should n
On 25 January 2014 14:58, herbert langhans wrote:
> The BIOS legacy mode I havent heard of yet (my equipment is quite
> vintage). Does it mean a non-legacy mode computer doesnt boot anything
> but MS-stuff? Or some funny partition table you cannot get rid of?
I still would check with the manufact
From: Volkmar Seifert [140125 16:34]
> I hope just 2GB doesnt slow down the amd64 or get it stuck. Did you try
> such combination, Volkmar?
Well, RAM isn't expensive, so I guess I'd install the 64-bit version anyway.
Indeed I did that on a set-top-box (with a Windows 7 64-
On 25 January 2014 12:52, herbert langhans wrote:
>
> I have to change my laptop, my nostalgic Thinkpad x31 blew up (I really
> liked it). Successor will be a Lenovo B590. I wonder what NetBSD will be
> ideal for it.
Beware, if it comes with Windows 8, it will have a GPT partition. I
would make s
> Actually the B590 comes with 2GB RAM, its the cheapo-edition. But my
> demands are not high, most ressources go for Firefox with Javascript or
> some movie player like xine.
>
> I hope just 2GB doesnt slow down the amd64 or get it stuck. Did you try
> such combination, Volkmar?
Well, RAM isn'
From: Volkmar Seifert [140125 16:20]
Hello there,
> Still wonder if I should try the NetBSD/amd64.
The only reason to install a 32-bit OS on an otherwise 64-bit capable
hardware would be, if the system-ram is 2GB or less.
Otherwise, you'd waste resources and CPU-capabilities.
Hello there,
> Still wonder if I should try the NetBSD/amd64.
The only reason to install a 32-bit OS on an otherwise 64-bit capable hardware
would be, if the system-ram is 2GB or less.
Otherwise, you'd waste resources and CPU-capabilities.
The 64-bit mode comes with a couple registers unavaible
ottavio.car...@googlemail.com (Ottavio Caruso) writes:
>Unless you're going to be using applications that don't compile on
>x64, then I would go for the amd64.
>The only example of application that I wanted to install from binary
>on amd64 and couldn't is emulators/wine. But it night well compile
From: Ottavio Caruso [140125 15:12]
On 25 January 2014 14:58, herbert langhans wrote:
> The BIOS legacy mode I havent heard of yet (my equipment is quite
> vintage). Does it mean a non-legacy mode computer doesnt boot anything
> but MS-stuff? Or some funny partition table you
On 25 January 2014 12:52, herbert langhans wrote:
> I have to change my laptop, my nostalgic Thinkpad x31 blew up (I really
> liked it). Successor will be a Lenovo B590. I wonder what NetBSD will be
> ideal for it.
>
> The processor of this laptop is a 64bit thing, its of the Intel i3 family.
> An
From: Ottavio Caruso [140125 14:50]
On 25 January 2014 12:52, herbert langhans wrote:
>
> I have to change my laptop, my nostalgic Thinkpad x31 blew up (I really
> liked it). Successor will be a Lenovo B590. I wonder what NetBSD will be
> ideal for it.
Beware, if
Hi List,
some question about the system families.
I have to change my laptop, my nostalgic Thinkpad x31 blew up (I really
liked it). Successor will be a Lenovo B590. I wonder what NetBSD will be
ideal for it.
The processor of this laptop is a 64bit thing, its of the Intel i3 family.
And the NetB
51 matches
Mail list logo
