Convert from AMD64 to i386

[Mats Holmberg]

Sasha Tsykin wrote:

> Billy Verreynne (JW) wrote:
>
>> Richard Barry wrote:
>> ==
>> When I recently installed ubuntu I did so using an amd64 install CD,
>> but I'm starting to think I should have stuck to plain old i386.
>> AMD64 doesn't have a few things I wat: flash plugin and w32codecs to
>> mention 2.  How hard would it be to convert to i386?  Would I have to
>> re-install?
>>   
>
> A flash plugin is problematic, although you could try gnash. As for 
> win32codecs, they can be installed in amd64.
>
> just download them from the mplayer site (the actual url is 
> http://www4.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codecs/) make the codecs 
> executable, and copy them to /usr/lib/win32.
>
> Another way to get flash (and all other 32-bit apps) to work, although 
> it involves a lot fo hard disk space, and seems inelegant and messy is 
> to create a 32-bit chroot. I don't use one, and I don't really like 
> them because f the space it wastes, but it can be done.; There is a 
> good guide at 
> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=24575&highlight=32-bit+chroot 
>


I wouldn't encourage anyone to use chroot either. I've tried it but it 
just results in more trouble (like mozilla with flash working ok, but 
printing not, for example). There always seem to be something you forget 
to install in your chroot, so in the end even living without flash may 
be easier. Having two complete versions of ubuntu would be far easier to 
install separately, not creating a chroot. Then what's left is that 
jumping to and fro.

>> ==
>>
>>
>> A complete re-install. You cannot just install a x386 kernel as the
>> rest of the software (Gnome, Office, etc) is 64 bit. Cannot run on a
>> 32bit kernel.
>>   
>
> it will run well, but at just a bit more than half the speed. I tried 
> it and found it a bit slow after 64-bit, but it works well.
>
>> But why? It is like taking the engine out of a Ferari and replacing it
>> with a 1400 VW engine because that's the only way to change the colour
>> of the seats. (okay bad analogy but still illustrating the point)
>>   
>
> No it's not, for many users, flash and codecs are fundamental. In 
> truth, I run another computer in 32-bit, and use the 64-bit comptuer 
> mainly for serving and for highly processor intensive activities, eg. 
> video encoding).


And I use Windows for those. On another computer. But I need flash very 
rarely.

Cheers,
Mats