Reasons you use 32-bit Slackware or not
 

Select all that apply, but choosing 64-bit only is exclusive.

As usual I don't fit any of the categories.

I have Slackware 64 with multi-lib on my main PC and did the same on my SO's laptop. However, for my Dell INSPIRON Mini netbook, I decided to go for 32-bit Slackware (even though it has a 64-bit processor) and avoid the multi-lib hassles.

A lot of older software was written for 32-bit machines and compiling them on a 64-bit platform sometimes causes problems. Multi-lib usually works but sometimes . . .

I run on my main machine Slackware64-current. I have done this since AlienBob made this possible. That said, I do have a separate partition with Slackware64-current/Multilib just because of Steam. I have seriously considered going multilib with my main machine just to stop rebooting. Now this is where I get lazy not wanting to keep up with multilib on -current. :)

I've voted the first two but, to clarify, I go 32bit only if strictly needed (by hardware or software), I use mainly slackware64 on my workstations (sometimes with multilib) and servers.

In that case you would select ' I'm too lazy to maintain 64-bit (possible multi-lib)'.

My reason, I still see myself using my old hardware(s) for next 5 years. Simple.

Regards.

For a lot of small server machines 32 bits is the best, if not only , option.
In desktop machines 64 bits is a viable option in most, but not all, situations

My laptops/desktop: Pure 64-bit (no multilib) - this may change if I decide to set up Steam

Netbook: 32-bit

I haven't voted as I don't know which option it'll reflect.

Why 32-bit for the netbook ? Select that answer.

I have 32-bit only netbook and run virtual server with 512MB RAM, where 32-bit applications consume less memory.

My computer is 64 bit so I use 64 bit, however I use wine for Quicken, I have yet to find a financial application for linux that will allow me to forward plan with recurring transactions, and output the information in a meaningful graph.

Oh wine is also superb for Oblivion and Fallout3.

samac

It doesn't seem right to define myself by a netbook that I only use occasionally. I do lots of work on my PC including multi-lib support.

The netbook used to have Window$ 7 (history!!! :D) but the 32-bit version. I think that's what finally persuaded me to go that way.

Most of my Slackware boxes are 64 bit ready, but, they are a little older having only 2 GB RAM, so it is not really worth it to run 64 bit (performance-wise).

It's your choice, but mostly I want to find out why people still use 32-bit. They didn't want to make a poll in the other thread, so I made this to try get more info on why people still use 32-bit.

Reasons given in other thread, here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...3/#post4883698

Some of my hardware is only 32bit. See here.

Well yesterday I upgrade slackware 12.1 to slackware-current on my other machine.The machine is Pentuim 2 with 256mb RAM and 300Mhz proccesor,applied non-smp kernel patch.On that machine i use xfce and my machine feel's good :) feel responsive,boot time is about 1 minute to desktop.

Sorry for my english,i hope you can understand me.

I use both 64 and 32 bit versions. I have applications and devices that are not supported on 64 bit as well as some older paltforms that are not 64-bit compatible.

On my gaming machine I run 64-bit, because it has more RAM than a 32-bit machine can register.

My older machine, which runs Slackware full time, has an AthlonXP 32-bit processor. I use that machine for a 2nd desktop, media player/server, etc. There is no technical reason I still use a 32-bit machine other than not enough money to upgrade at the moment.

Once I can get a new computer, I don't see myself using the 32-bit again, as then both of the machines I use will have 64-bit processors.

I run 64-bit where hardware will allow, but I have an Acer netbook and an old Dell laptop that are 32-bit only.

Fortunately, now that I've kicked my World of Warcraft habit I don't need to setup multi-lib anymore.

I have two 32 bit machines running i386 (or is it i586?) and when i installed Slackware on my newer machine i realized too late that i had 64-bit processors on this one and 32-bit Slack was running fine soooo i let it go , never felt the need for 64-bit operating system and i figured i would give the developers time to fine tune 64-bit world.

There is also an option to run a mixed 64 bit kernel 32 bit userland configuration (of course not officially supported), which I used, before Slackware64 became available. It removes the memory management limitations while keeping things simple.

Linux itself (the kernel) benefits from 64 bits already at memory sizes above 896 MB.

But the main reason why I still use ia32 OS is that you need hardware virtualization for running x86_64 OS in a paravirtual machine. Binary Translation only works with IA32 code. And still many x86-64 capable machines ship without the essential Virtualization CPU feature, because most end-users don't need it.

maybe tell us, why to use x64 at all, if you have less than 4 ( ok, 3.2 ) Gb RAM? i do not see any advantage...only a disadvantages such as use multilibs to run x32 apps, sometime compiling problems on x32 soft, and consumation more RAM for the same tasks...

in what situations i can see this benefit? i have c2d computer with 2 Gb RAM and slack 13.37 x64 at work, and on home desktop my previously OS be a Mandriva x64, and now is Slack 14 x32 - only difference i see, is x64 consume more RAM for the same tasks. no see any benefits on x64 versions...

Have you looked into Moneydance? It runs on Linux, mac, and windows.


I voted Pure 64-bit BTW :)

This is not what the thread is about. However, there are performance benefits to 64-bit, and I'm sure your next computer will probably have more than 4 GB of RAM.

no, it is - this is thread about 32 vs 64 bit slackware.
a that time i dont want more than 3 gb ram because that ammount is enought for my tasks - even in novadays crappy soft ( yes, slackware too going this way! i remember times when 2 - 4 megabytes is enought, tday without 128 Mb you cannot install slackware in normal way at all! i remebrer demoscenes and what a graphic and audio masters pack into 64 kilobytes!!! niowadays crappy tetris require gigabytes space on HDD, and gigabytes RAM for run - it is very sadly for me. computers, who times ago make a nuclear blact modelling, now cannot run average desktop - software has become more and more resource consuming, in that same time not giving any valuable plusses over old one...).

also i not seen any easy seen performance benefits of x64, othervise i maybe choose to run x64 on my machines.

Benchmarks:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...204_3264&num=1

Let me say this about that:
(1) This is on Intel Core i7 720Q @ 1.60GHz (8 Cores). I do not have that in my laptop.
(2) I won't ever use any of the applications on which this benchmark is based.
(3) This benchmark's conclusion : "The performance advantage of 64-bit over 32-bit Ubuntu is clear" applies to very demanding software run on very powerful machines (by today's standards). This is certainly true but:
(a) I'm not sure a benchmark was really needed to get to that conclusion.
(b) This is of no use for people who do not run this kind of software and do not own this kind of hardware.

PS Kind of stupid to use such a processor with only 4 GB RAM anyway IMO ;)

I can tell you that using slackware64 makes a huge difference on my netbook. It's underpowered and using 64-bit helps a lot performance wise, even with 2 GB of RAM.

This old athlon64 wouldn't benefit from 64b methinks. I used to think I needed wine or some other 32b app but now since I don't actually use them anymore it's because I'm way too lazy to keep up with multi-lib.

Well none of those reasons fit. I had to select Other.

I use Slackware on 32-bit machines because Slackware64 won't work. I use Slackware64 on 64-bit machines.

I have Skype running just fine on Slackware64 (no multilib).

If I need to run 32-bit software, I will install Alien Bob's multilib. :hattip:

Maintaining Slackware64 is identical to maintaining Slackware. Multilib does not add much to the difficulty factor. Truth be told, I am a bit lazy, I use Sébastien Ballet's outstanding multilibpkg and compat32pkg tools to manage multilib. :hattip:

You can type free -l and then you see "Low" and "High" memory. Stuff in the "High" memory has a little performance penalty when accessed due to virtual address space constraints. You can disable High memory in the kernel configuration, but then you can only access 896 MB of RAM.

BTW: There is no hard 4 GB limit in existence*), the memory limit for IA32 is 64 GB. But the issue described above happens with more than 896 MB (almost 1 GB) of physical RAM installed. You can solve it by booting a x86-64 kernel (with matching modules of course). You don't need to have a complete 64 bit distribution, neither multib. When doing so, all your 32 bit stuff fits into "Low" memory.

*) The Windows limit is a licensing restriction and the Slackware limit is a configured one, which is gone in 14.0.

I have 32-bit Slackware 13.37 on my Dell Mini 10v netbook. I don't think it supports 64-bit and, regardless, I don't see myself upgrading any time soon. The netbook does what I want (basically VIM and serving as a dumb terminal to my home network).

I also have 32-bit 13.37 on machine that has a Lightscribe DVD burner (for which only 32-bit drivers are available, last I checked). I've yet to use Lightscribe but my initial intent was to test it out (I picked up this Pentium 4 machine at a rummage sale for $5). I may switch to 64-bit next upgrade (and try multi-lib) so that I can add it to my distcc hosts.

My remaining machines all run 64-bit, no multi-lib. The larger memory addressing space isn't (yet) an issue as none of my machines have more than 4Gb, but I find 64-bit provides a noticable performance improvement (my guess is this is mainly owing to its having double the registers).

i use old hardware

using 64 bit on all capable machines, only left one laptop on 32 bit for the odd compatibility issue and to compile 32 bit packages (sometimes for use with multilib on the 64 bit machines)

Other: Compatiblity

Slackware is my main OS and I just need it to work in as many situations as possible. I don't know of any applications that I want/need to run that aren't available in 32bit. I thought about switching to 64bit for 14.0, but I'll probably end up waiting at least a few more years before I switch over.

I made a small stupid mistake
 

I saw just after I voted that it was a multiple choice poll.

Yes I am too lazy to maintain 64-bit and possibly multilib!
(is that a sin?) :D

I also must run 32-bit-only software (like Skype, wine, etc.)

Some of my computers are only 32-bit capable.

And 32-bit Slackware just works.

I've used only 64-bit Linux on my desktop for many years now. I was using 32-bit Linux on my laptops for a while because I was using Skype and because dosbox wouldn't work on 64-bit platforms, but that was a while ago. I no longer use Skype, and modern dosbox works on 64-bit systems just fine, so I run 64-bit Linux on my laptop as well.

Back when I was messing with cryptographic algorithms, the ability to perform 64x64->128bit multiplication operations was a big performance win (each equivalent to four 32x32->64bit multiplication operations).

In more recent years I've been doing data mining / ETL work (both for work and for personal projects), and the ability to have individual processes larger than 4GB was a necessity. (32-bit systems can of course access more than 4GB, but only with multiple processes. It's possible to split data across multiple processes, but that's a PITA and I've done that quite enough, and do not want to anymore.)

Part of the reason, too, is because this is the 21st century, and 32-bit desktop systems are about as ludicrous and out-of-place as 16- or 8-bit systems. Old 64-bit systems can be picked up at garage sales or thrift stores for about $20. You can replace that ancient i586 for the price of four Starbucks cappuccinos.

Well, I have done, and still do, things with 8 bit machine code that blows the wheels off 64 bit multi-threaded code badly written by programmers so-called who have no clue what their application actually requires, or what their hardware is actually capable of. And I am nothing special, just an old biker with an attitude!

The value of CPU cycles is dependent more on their use than their byte-width or clock speed. For the most part, all the current incredible hardware and storage capacity, which we could not even dream of a few short years ago, is totally wasted on many people who own it. All that ludicrous out-of-place hardware that you mention, combined with the great gift of Slackware, has been nothing short of lifesaving for myself and many others. And our very maginalization is in large part a result of decisions taken by the 64-bit gaming cappuccio set.

And it is true, my only 64 bit systems actually did come from a thrift store - one of them from the dumpster behind the thrift store. And I can only imagine that it was put there by some other unthinking, uncaring cappuccio swilling person with no idea what a treasure their garbage actually was... for which I am oddly thankful.

Do I sound offended? Yes, I am a little bit, maybe about 32 bits, but then I am an old, obsolete guy. And the next time you decide to throw out some of that old ludicrous hardware, take it down to the thrift store instead, someone will surely recognize it for what it is worth. Or send it to me, I'll buy you a cappuccino and pay the shipping.

I voted for "Other", because I can boot zipslack on my old Dell box.

I've yet to see any *real*, make-an-app-work-twice-as-fast-and-twice-as-well advantage to using 64bit, so I don't. It's easier to keep it 32bit (yes, I chose lazy as one option, but if I were still on dialup - which I only recently got away from after 15 years! - it wouldn't be laziness). I also can't afforst to keep up on all the latest and greatest hardware, so a lot of what I have is only good with 32bit.

There are plenty of benchmarks and there do exist such advantages, although usually not twice as much (only sometimes):
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...204_3264&num=1
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...210_3264&num=1

Well, if you have a 1000 elements array even a so-called programmer can sort it with his so-called algorithm O(n^2) quicker than you with your impossibile O(1) alghorithm.

absolutely agree!
but, in any case - x64 is the all of our future, and we cannot change that.
P.S. what soft you use as planetarium on linux ( as astro geek) ?
i mainly usinf kdestars, but on some machines he have a bug with all solar system objects culmination shows in one time. i write that bug in kde bugcenter, but it seems like not interested anyone there...:)

I honestly didn't see anything there that would jump out at me to the naked eye when using either on my system. 3 seconds in something like changing a wav to an mp3 isn't worth it to me, and the few things it had an advantage at that were big, again, won't make much difference to the naked eye.

Besides, I read too often still about problems with 64bit and apps to run in 64bit etc that it just isn't worth the hassle at this time for me to even think about switching. I'm sure it won't be much longer (in the computer world time frame of things) that 64bit will finally work as well as 32bit without all the gotcha's and such. For those who like the 64bit, for whatever reasons, good for them and I'm happy, it's just not for *me* yet. I'm not against 64bit, just that I don't see it as ready enough for me to be using yet is all.

Phoronix is just a ....
Look at this test http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...210_3264&num=3 and then view that test http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...xdistros&num=2
You'll see the diference's Phoronix just sucks
In one bench Slackware vs Arch vs Ubuntu vs Cents0S
NAS paraller test/EP.B UBUNTU have 373.16 but in Ubuntu32 vs Ubuntu64 on same test Ubuntu have 98.74
NAS paraller test/SP.A Ubuntu have 3830 but in Ubuntu32 vs Ubuntu64 on same test Ubuntu have 2460
NAS paraller test/UA.A Ubuntu have 49.12 but in Ubuntu32 vs Ubuntu64 on same test UBuntu have 16.79

Phoronix HATE SLACKWARE

p.s
Sorry for my english i hope you can understand me :)

Well, I certainly did not say that any arbitrary process could be better implemented on an 8 bit device. And although I did not say that the algorithm was O(1), I did say that it was both possible and more efficient than some other algorithm on newer hardware (and infer that to mean faster in particular). So if mine really were O(1) and both possible and faster as stated, then your conclusion would not follow and O(n^2) on 64 bits would still lose the race!

But my point was not to show a case where the bounds were understood.

It was specifically intended to counter the statement that 8, 16 and 32 bit desktop platforms were automatically obsoleted due to the calendar date and the availability of 64 bit hardware. And in that context, all too many programmers (so-called) rely on the speed of the CPU and availability of RAM to cover their own lack of understanding of their problem spaces - that is, where the programmer has no actual idea what the bounds of his/her code are!

If they understood those bounds on the older hardware and continued to implement similar good algorithms on the new platform, then we would see performance increases proportional to the hardware specs!

Which was really my point, perhaps poorly made.

Yes, 64 is here - and that is a good thing! I certainly did not mean to imply that availability of 64 bit hardware was a negative thing! But I am still waiting for the day that we can rely on getting actual, useful benefits, as opposed to glitter and flash, from those dizzying hardware specs on our desktops - and that will require better discipline and knowledge level on the part of those who write the code that runs on them - and that trend is not often hopeful in my personal opinion... (but I am certainly no expert either!)

Much of my professsional career was involved with the development and support of motion control and receiver systems for many of the world's large telescopes, radio telescopes in particular. It was the perfect marriage of passion and profession! Hence, astrogeek...

I play with Celestia sometimes as a planetarium of sorts, and use a few ephemerides, but prefer to sit out with my 8" Celestron or a good pair of binoculars and paper charts... or just close my eyes and go places, still the best hardware platform!