AMD64

[Lord Sauron]

On 3/20/06, Mats Holmberg <mats.holmberg at elisanet.fi> wrote:
> Lord Sauron wrote:
>
> >On 3/20/06, Mats Holmberg <mats.holmberg at elisanet.fi> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Lord Sauron wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On 3/20/06, scott <sclewin at bmts.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>   My motherboard died on me so I decided to get both a new motherboard
> >>>>and chip.  I decided on getting a Sempron and it supports AMD64.
> >>>>
> >>>>   My first question is, should I now download and install the AMD64
> >>>>version of Kubuntu?  My second question: how stable is the AMD64 side
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Yes and as stable as i386.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Ubuntu core system is stable, yes, but many applications are not. Also,
> >>there are some features you simply won't get functioning - that is
> >>easily or completely.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >You can always get it completely compatible.  AMD64 architecture is
> >really just x86_64 - it's 100%, totally and natively compatible with
> >i386, 486, 586 and 686 architectures.  Now, you will need to work at
> >ignoring some architecture dependency checking, assuming you're not a
> >total moron and try installing the PPC port of something, however,
> >there is no such thing as a i386/AMD64 compatitibility problem.
> >Anyone who tells you otherwise is either being blindly loyal to Intel
> >or has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.  Period.  End of
> >Subject.
> >
> >
> So every user out there who either don't want to or don't have the time
> to think about technical details (I for one need a working sysytem,
> easily) are either Intel fanatics or morons. That's really helpful you
> know... period.

No, people who lie and say that AMD64 architecture isn't compatible
with i386 are Intel fanatics or morons.  I ended up using the i386
version of Kubuntu on my Athlon64 just because I couldn't figure out
how to turn off the dependency checking to install some i386 packages.
 However, that was way back when I was still in my early days of
learning how to successfully use the CLI.

> I know everything is possible, but that's not the point here. Anyone who
> doesn't see things from a users point of view is a moron by my definition.

I envision the end product first, then build the black box.  I was
making a point about the technical parts of it - if you don't want to
fool around with dependency checking then by all means use the i386
version, but if you don't mind the dependency checking then you can
get ~10% performance increase by using x86_64 compiled software.

I'm sorry if I'm a bit vague - I really have problems getting what I'm
thinking onto the screen.  I am getting better... you should have seen
me a year ago.  Can you say "flambait?"

--
========== GCv3.12 ==========
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+
                DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y
========= END GCv3.12 ========