LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   Shouldn't "Slackware64" Become just "Slackware" and 32-bit Become "Slackware32"? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/shouldnt-slackware64-become-just-slackware-and-32-bit-become-slackware32-731842/)

foodown 06-10-2009 12:38 AM

Shouldn't "Slackware64" Become just "Slackware" and 32-bit Become "Slackware32"?
 
Just curious to see what others think.

Once Slackware 13 comes out and we have our first official stable 64-bit Slackware release, shouldn't the "default" distro be the 64-bit one?

I know that Slackware is well-known for its ability to run well on legacy hardware . . . but that's why there would still be Slackware32!

Almost any PC purchased in the last few years is 64-bit. (ALMOST) Plus, it can't be "Slackware64" ten years from now, can it? For whom would the distinction be valuable at that point? Even my old 486 DNS will likely have bit the dust by then. (I hope not.)

I guess another good sub-question here would be: When 13 comes out, how many of you are still going to run the 32-bit version? I will be on the 486, but that's it . . . the wife and I are both happily on 64-current and I doubt I'll ever look back.

noctilucent 06-10-2009 03:37 AM

Why not call them both "Slackware" [and that's it]. You don't see Fedora, Fedora64, FedoraPPC, etc. [or Gentoo64, Debian64 nor others.]

Alien Bob 06-10-2009 04:24 AM

It is still called Slackware. The directory with the 64bit port is called slackware64-current but the official name for the distribution is "Slackware for x86_64" - see the ChangeLog here: http://www.slackware.com/changelog/c...php?cpu=x86_64

There will not be a "default" Slackware. There will be a release for each of two architectures (x86 and x86_64) and these are being maintained in sync. You get to choose what you want to install.
Do not think that x86_64 will be the predominant platform any time soon... the largest growth in computer sales this past year is in the netbook area, and those netbooks are all based on 32bit CPU's (mostly Atom270).

Eric

benjo316 06-22-2009 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alien Bob (Post 3568949)
and those netbooks are all based on 32bit CPU's (mostly Atom270).

Eric

Actually, any netbook that has a VIA Nano processor (not many at the moment, but I'm hoping that will change soon) is 64 bit capable.
Quote:

Originally Posted by VIA Nano product page
The superscalar, speculative out-of-order 'Isaiah, architecture of the VIA Nano processor family supports a full 64-bit instruction set[...].

Don't fault all netbooks just because Intel didn't make an efficient and full featured processor. ;)

onebuck 06-23-2009 08:28 AM

Hi,
Quote:

Originally Posted by benjo316 (Post 3582927)
Actually, any netbook that has a VIA Nano processor (not many at the moment, but I'm hoping that will change soon) is 64 bit capable.
Don't fault all netbooks just because Intel didn't make an efficient and full featured processor. ;)

Current production machines are mostly 32bit. I don't fault Intel for anything. They still lead production for processors worldwide. I like AMD and Intel but I find faults with each at some time in producing a processor with some lacking ability that the other might have. But then each had it's gain at the moment.

Sure if every laptop or machine manufacture could mystically retool to use the latest and greatest we all would benefit. But that's not going to happen until we have that new molecular synthesizer. I wonder if the VIA Nano will be used? :)

benjo316 06-23-2009 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onebuck (Post 3583355)
Current production machines are mostly 32bit.

Yes, I don't argue against that.
Quote:

I don't fault Intel for anything.
Quote:

Originally Posted by benjo316
Don't fault all netbooks just because Intel didn't make an efficient and full featured processor

I was actually saying Intel should be faulted and netbooks shouldn't be, not that you were. I give them credit for going into this area, but they really shouldn't have, considering their known for their powerful processors and not for efficient processors.
Quote:

Originally Posted by onebuck
They still lead production for processors worldwide. I like AMD and Intel but I find faults with each at some time in producing a processor with some lacking ability that the other might have. But then each had it's gain at the moment.

I never mentioned AMD... Though I do prefer them to Intel, if only because competition is good. And of course they both have their up sides; Intel's up side is not power efficiency... As far as I know, it's just power (and OC stability, apparently. But I wouldn't know about that, since I don't OC).

As the name suggests, the Nano is made by VIA. I won't assume whether you do or do not know about it. If you don't, the benchmarks and reviews are interesting.

Anyway, the goal of my post was just to correct the statement that all netbooks are based on 32 bit CPUs. There are 64 bit capable netbooks out there, in production. You just have to look.

onebuck 06-23-2009 01:24 PM

Hi,

Arguments could be presented from other points of hardware design. The 'Nano' may become a popular processor. Just don't exclude Intel. Their production abilities do provide the means to step towards newer low power processors if and when one is designed. 32bit vs 64bit in a Laptop/netbook will depend on demand not speculation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.