[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Paul Sutton wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > JOHN DAVEY wrote: > >> OK, I find myself with a 64 bit motherboard. What's the general >> consensus on the best distro for 64 bit here? >> I have googled it but most of the links were to forums with fairly >> uninformative discussions. >> Cheers, Jon. >> >> > > You can get ubuntu for 64 bit, as well as other distributions i think > the software available is the same > > I think you hit issues with propriatory software. > > Paul > A lot of the big distros I've seen (Debian, Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu) have 64-Bit versions. As you say though there are issues with some proprietary software although a 32-Bit chroot can get around this usually. I guess eventually it's going to get to the point that as PCs have so much memory the 64-Bit versions will be better supported. It always makes me laugh that PCs and laptops are now advertised with a whopping 3GB memory, usually I'd say only because the companies don't want the hassle of supporting 64-Bit Windows and they don't want to be caught out with the fact that 32-Bit Windows Vista Home won't support 4GB (it displays 4GB, but only uses about 3.25GB). IMHO Windows x64 isn't as well supported as 32-Bit Windows (yes, 32-Bit software will run on Vista x64 and XP x64 but things like video and audio codecs are badly supported in some cases). Not so much of a problem when you're running a server but I'd say for a desktop system I'd say overall the 64-Bit support on Linux is much better than Windows. That reminds me, I must get round to wiping off Vista x64 off my laptop, the 60 odd gig I allocated for Windows could be put to much better use (more space for /home). Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html