0

I am going to switch to linux soon.

I have a laptop, the system information says:-

System type: X86-based PC
Processor: x86 family 15 Model 22 stepping 9 intel 2500 Mhz

Which one should i choose, the x86_64(I think this one is for 64 bit)
or i386 (this one has the 86 in it too.) i'am confused, help.

And also which distro will be better the Fedora or Mandrake. (I have Red Hat 9 on cds which says Rad Hat_i3 on the cd label.)

11
Contributors
28
Replies
29
Views
12 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by jbennet
0

x86_64 linux distro if you have a 64 bit processor, for example any of AMD 64. For your machine choose x86 distro.

Madrake have more applications and more recent (and no stable) applications.
Fedora is more stable.
Both use rpm software packages...I have Fedora 3

0

x86_64 linux distro if you have a 64 bit processor, for example any of AMD 64. For your machine choose x86 distro.

Madrake have more applications and more recent (and no stable) applications.
Fedora is more stable.
Both use rpm software packages...I have Fedora 3

By saing my machine needs x86 distro, do you mean the one with small red circle or the big red circle.

[IMG]http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/emen/screenshot.bmp[/IMG]

As I understand i386 is for 32bit processor. and i dont know what bit my processor is.

0

You should be able to install the 32 bit version . Once you are done do a

cat /proc/cpuinfo you will be able to get the information of the processor ..

./thanks
ilaiy

0

yes, that it, a 32 bits version.

You should be able to install the 32 bit version . Once you are done do a

cat /proc/cpuinfo you will be able to get the information of the processor ..

./thanks
ilaiy

0

Well you would not need to worry then ..

All the best 'njoy linux

./thanks
ilaiy

0

Well you would not need to worry then ..

All the best 'njoy linux

./thanks
ilaiy

32bit than.


Thanks guys. :cool:

0

go for the big red circle

I did that, Thanks anyway. ;)

0

Both use rpm software packages...I have Fedora 3

RPM the worst package management system apart from slackware's.

Linux is really lacking good package management and RPM is right at the bottem of the barrel

0

is there any problem can u tell any error msg that is comming

WHAT problems and error mesg u taking about?
no errors and problems. :cool:

0

This is the perfect example of a web thread that makes absolutely no sense.


Q. How do you tell if your machine is x86_64 or i386?

A. Go for the big red circle! (and a bunch of bickering)


Yes, well thanks.....that clears things up nicely. On to another website..........

0

x86 is 32-bit cpu. x86_64 is a 64-bit cpu. Most computers are 32-bit, but that is starting to change, as most macs are 64-bit, and new machines by dell, hp, and others are moving to that architecture.

0

> Actually the newest macs (intel core 2 duo) are 32 bit.

actually they're not. osx leopard will only be 64-bit. if it comes out and people can't upgrade to it, that would suck, which is why most of the macs are 64-bit, currently running a 32-bit os. i'm pretty sure all the macs, except for the mac mini, are 64-bit

0

your wrong. The processor just allows larger variables access. It is just a modifed intel core duo chip I think. All it does is allow larger access... It is not built to be 64 bit.

0

>most macs are 64-bit
The only Mac which is truly 64 bit is the Mac Pro.

>osx leopard will only be 64-bit.
Incorrect. It will have good support for 64 bit applications, but it has to be capable of running on 32 bit systems, or else Apple would be targeting a very narrow range of systems (ones made in the last year or so).

>yes, core 2 duo is 64-bit
Again, incorrect. It's capable of executing 64 bit instructions, but it's still a 32 bit chip. My understanding of the chip is that its data path is 64 bits, which is what allows it to execute the x86_64 instruction set.

0

I quote directly from the apple site

Cast your gaze on the ultimate eye-opening experience: the new faster, bigger, and brighter iMacs. Starting at just $999, the most personal of personal computers comes out packing a powerful punch. That’s thanks to the new 64-bit Intel Core 2 Duo processor, you’ll find in each and every new iMac.

>Incorrect. It will have good support for 64 bit applications, but it has to be capable of running on 32 bit systems, or else Apple would be targeting a very narrow range of systems (ones made in the last year or so).

just because an os is 64-bit, does not mean it can't run 32-bit applications. xp pro 64-bit had backward compatibility with 32-bit apps. So leopard is a 64-bit os that can run 32-bit apps.

Also from the intel website
http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/index.htm
the core 2 duo is a 64-bit processor.

0

>the core 2 duo is a 64-bit processor.

NO ITS NOT. Intel lies. The chip supports 64 bit instructions. It is not built to 64 bit.

0

Intel made the chip and you say they lie?
What have you done to make you say that?
Are you Intel?

0

The only Mac which is truly 64 bit is the Mac Pro.

I apologize, I believe this statement was incorrect. After some researching, it appears that the Xeon has the same limitations of the Intel Core 2 Duo. So there aren't any Macs that are truly 64 bit.

>just because an os is 64-bit, does not mean it can't run 32-bit applications.
Yes, but Leopard still has to be backwards compatible with some of the PowerPC Macs, and the Intel Macs that aren't capable of even executing 64 bit instructions.

>the core 2 duo is a 64-bit processor.
Hopefully this will clear up any confusion.

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HARDWARE_Apple_MacBook#MacBooks_After_November_2006

The Core2Duo is a processor that uses the IA-32 microarchitecture with EM64T extension. That makes it similar to an AMD Athlon 64 processor. Although it is not a true 64 bit processor (not IA-64 microarchitecture) it can process the 64bit instruction set and features the 64bit address register extensions and general purpose registers. That means you can choose to run a traditional 32bit x86 or an x86-64 system. An x86-64 system is capable of running 32bit and 64bit applications. The 64bit applications can use 4GB address space per process (2GB in x86).

>Intel lies.
I wouldn't exactly call it lying, but perhaps not providing exact details. They did imply this when they say "added support for 64 bit computing" in the specifications on their website.

0

ok, thank you for clearing that up. But I thought leopard was going to be for the intel macs only. At least that's what i got from the keynote.

0

>But I thought leopard was going to be for the intel macs only. At
>least that's what i got from the keynote.
I didn't watch Steve Jobs' latest keynote, but from what I've gathered, that isn't going to be the case. After all, Apple has an enormous PPC user base, and not supporting them would be just silly. The bigger question is how long will Apple continue supporting these machines and their users.

0

Just thought I would throw in some additional information. The only intel chips that were true 64bit, were the itaniums (IA64), most of the newer processors are capable of 64bit computing but are not true 64 bit processors. If you want 'true' 64bit architecture though, go with the Sun SPARC processors :)

The new processors that support 64bit processing, are still based on the x86 platform, and are x86_64 architecture.

This entire point though is moot, because if you try to install the x86_64 OS's (including Vista 64bit), on true 64 bit processors, it isn't going to work. So for all intent and purposes the x86_64 architecture is the current "64bit processors".

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.