LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Linux Power User Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards
User Name
Password
2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards This forum is for the 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2015. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends on February 10th.


Notices


View Poll Results: Browser of the Year
Chrome 67 12.67%
Chromium 45 8.51%
Conkeror 0 0%
Dillo 1 0.19%
dwb 1 0.19%
Epiphany 1 0.19%
Firefox 293 55.39%
Iceweasel 31 5.86%
Konqueror 1 0.19%
links/elinks 2 0.38%
Luakit 1 0.19%
lynx 3 0.57%
Midori 6 1.13%
NetRider 0 0%
Opera 14 2.65%
Otter Browser 4 0.76%
PaleMoon 18 3.40%
QupZilla 8 1.51%
rekonq 1 0.19%
SeaMonkey 26 4.91%
Uzbl 3 0.57%
w3m 2 0.38%
Iridium 1 0.19%
Voters: 529. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-12-2016, 03:15 PM   #106
normanlinux
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2013
Distribution: Arch and SuSE
Posts: 151

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
Yet, at home. And work, I use Firefox all the time with no issues.
Don't get me wrong -- they've not exactly set the world on fire but it's rare I find issues.
No, because people like me use polyfills to get around deficiencies as with Internet Exploder.

Remember, my post was in response to an idiot who claimed that there was nothing wrong with Firefox - it was just stupid web developers who couldn't use it
 
Old 02-12-2016, 09:03 PM   #107
Jon Wilob
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I can't use Chrome any longer.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipeweed View Post
I use Chromium, Midori and recently Chrome for particular sites, but Firefox still does all the hard work.
and still get updates because Chrome says my system is too old-32 bit sighhhh. Chromium is still working fine for me and I suppose updates are still being provided for it?
 
Old 02-12-2016, 10:15 PM   #108
Timothy Miller
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Distribution: Debian, Fedora & Arch mostly.
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Wilob View Post
and still get updates because Chrome says my system is too old-32 bit sighhhh. Chromium is still working fine for me and I suppose updates are still being provided for it?
Correct, chromium is still getting updates.

Let me ask, what's the reason for staying with 32-bit OS? I only ask because it honestly took me by surprise how many people were affected with the discontinuation of 32-bit chrome. Given that Intel nor AMD have made a chip in like 5 years that didn't support 64-bit instructions, and the first 64-bit chips are well over 10 years old now, I didn't really think there would be many people still forced to use 32-bit only.
 
Old 02-13-2016, 02:46 AM   #109
dunne
Member
 
Registered: May 2014
Distribution: OpenBSD
Posts: 67

Rep: Reputation: 36
If you have a 32-bit machine, and it works, why would you buy a new machine?

Last edited by dunne; 02-13-2016 at 02:47 AM.
 
Old 02-13-2016, 10:25 AM   #110
Timothy Miller
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Distribution: Debian, Fedora & Arch mostly.
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunne View Post
If you have a 32-bit machine, and it works, why would you buy a new machine?
Because it'll be faster and use less electricity? That's my reasoning to replace my laptops after a couple years. And the biggest part of my reasoning that I'm going to be building a new desktop here in another month. I can build a new desktop that'll be SIGNIFICANTLY faster in every way, and actually use LESS power than my existing one. Although that's also a big part of the reason 3 of my machines use <10w TDP processors. I try to avoid sucking more power than I have to on most of my systems (living in phoenix, my electricity bill in the summer is already horrendous due to AC running 24/7 for 5 months).

Last edited by Timothy Miller; 02-13-2016 at 10:28 AM.
 
Old 02-13-2016, 01:01 PM   #111
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,971
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669Reputation: 1669
Quote:
32-bit
the issue will wear itself out eventually.
until then i think it is the decent thing to respect all people who, for whatever reason (just don't want to, aren't able to, cannot afford to...) are still using 32-bit machines.
with that said, i couldn't care less if chrome doesn't support it or not, or maybe even doesn't support linux at all...
 
Old 02-13-2016, 03:48 PM   #112
moxieman99
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Distribution: Dabble, but latest used are Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10.4.1
Posts: 420

Rep: Reputation: 147Reputation: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Miller View Post
Because it'll be faster and use less electricity? That's my reasoning to replace my laptops after a couple years.
1. Depending on the computing load on the machine, and the user's patience, being faster is not necessarily a factor. Particularly where the extra responsiveness is measures in Nths of a second.
2. Electric usage is not the only environmental consideration. The environmental costs (all of them, not just electricity) of recycling the old computer, and the environmental costs of building a new machine or components for a new machine (ditto) can make the case easily for keeping an old machine.

3. What I do is take my old computers, max out the RAM that the mobo will recognize, add a nice video card and any other bells and whistles the system will handle (wifi cards, etc.), install LibreOffice and other free software, and give the result to kids in the neighborhood whose families are poor. The kids can do homework, surf the net, and even if it's only a year or so before they out-grow it, save resources for another day.

I can't imagine being so wasteful as to replace a computer every two or three years.
 
Old 02-13-2016, 06:33 PM   #113
anticapitalista
Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: Greece
Distribution: antiX using herbstluftwm, fluxbox, IceWM and jwm.
Posts: 365

Rep: Reputation: 100Reputation: 100
Not everyone can afford to buy a new machine, so the fact that there are distros out there that do not make their old box/laptop obsolete is wonderful IMO, and should be praised. Let the wealthy upgrade every year or so their hardware
 
Old 02-13-2016, 11:30 PM   #114
Jon Wilob
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Why a 32 Bit OS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Miller View Post
Correct, chromium is still getting updates.

Let me ask, what's the reason for staying with 32-bit OS? I only ask because it honestly took me by surprise how many people were affected with the discontinuation of 32-bit chrome. Given that Intel nor AMD have made a chip in like 5 years that didn't support 64-bit instructions, and the first 64-bit chips are well over 10 years old now, I didn't really think there would be many people still forced to use 32-bit only.
I know of two people....My neighbor and myself. She's getting the "support ending" Chrome message also. I'm going to set her up with Firefox or Chromium tomorrow. She's running a Vista box...yuk! They saw her coming when she bought that rig!

Thanks for asking Tim. About the only reason I'm staying with a 32 bit OS is because my grand kids come over and play the real old games like Doom, COD, Quake, Far Cry etc. My processor is a 3.0 ghtz Pentium P-4. I built the system in 'O6. I use my IDE drives in a way I can swap them in and out with ease and thus leave whatever game the kids want to play on one of several drives. I've never given it much thought about trying any of the old games on Linux because the IDE drives I have all have Windoze XP with the games on them. I'd love to be able to step up to a 64 bit system and still be able to let the kids play all the old games. I could maybe even put a "hot swap" SATA setup in it. Desktops with 64 bit capability are now practically being given away so it's not the cost that's holding me back but rather the know how. Any suggestions how I can get my old software to work with a Linux 64 bit machine would be welcomed. Regards, Jon
 
Old 02-14-2016, 10:45 AM   #115
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib."
Posts: 3,628
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 961Reputation: 961Reputation: 961Reputation: 961Reputation: 961Reputation: 961Reputation: 961Reputation: 961
Isn't that P-4 a 64-bit chip with hyperthreading?
 
Old 02-14-2016, 11:39 AM   #116
Timothy Miller
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Distribution: Debian, Fedora & Arch mostly.
Posts: 2,536

Rep: Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693Reputation: 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwizardone View Post
Isn't that P-4 a 64-bit chip with hyperthreading?
Pentium 4's, unless you have the exact model number are impossible to tell. There were multiple speeds with multiple cores, and other than the absolutely FASTEST chips, there was at least 1 chip at every speed that didn't support 64-bit, and at least 1 that did.

That said, there are P4 3.0's that support 64-bit and hyperthreading.

Such as, for a 3.0 GHz, there are:

Northwood core 3.0, 32-bit no hyperthreading
Prescott core 3.0, 32-bit w/ hyperthreading
Prescott core 3.0E, 32-bit w/ hyperthreading
Prescott core 531, 64-bit w/ hyperthreading
Prescott core 630, 64-bit w/ hyperthreading
Cedarmill core 631, 64-bit w/ hyperthreading

And that's just the 3.00 GHz ones, not including ones that are 3.06 GHz...

The thing that makes it so that MIGHT support it is that all the non 64-bit chips were released by Feb 2004. The 630 was released in 05 and the 631 was released in 06 when OP says the system was built...so there is a decent possibility of it being a 64-bit chip.

Last edited by Timothy Miller; 02-14-2016 at 11:44 AM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-14-2016, 06:25 PM   #117
Jon Wilob
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Miller View Post
Pentium 4's, unless you have the exact model number are impossible to tell. There were multiple speeds with multiple cores, and other than the absolutely FASTEST chips, there was at least 1 chip at every speed that didn't support 64-bit, and at least 1 that did.

That said, there are P4 3.0's that support 64-bit and hyperthreading.

Such as, for a 3.0 GHz, there are:

Northwood core 3.0, 32-bit no hyperthreading
Prescott core 3.0, 32-bit w/ hyperthreading
Prescott core 3.0E, 32-bit w/ hyperthreading
Prescott core 531, 64-bit w/ hyperthreading
Prescott core 630, 64-bit w/ hyperthreading
Cedarmill core 631, 64-bit w/ hyperthreading

And that's just the 3.00 GHz ones, not including ones that are 3.06 GHz...

The thing that makes it so that MIGHT support it is that all the non 64-bit chips were released by Feb 2004. The 630 was released in 05 and the 631 was released in 06 when OP says the system was built...so there is a decent possibility of it being a 64-bit chip.
Looks like I got a pre. '04 processor i.e. Prescott core 3.0, 32-bit w/ hyperthreading (No 64 bit support here). Thanks for the help. I'll just use Chromium or Firefox from now on.

user@user-desktop:~$ lscpu
Architecture: i686
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 2
On-line CPU(s) list: 0,1
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 1
Socket(s): 1
Vendor ID: GenuineIntel
CPU family: 15
Model: 4
Stepping: 1
CPU MHz: 3006.910
BogoMIPS: 6013.82
L1d cache: 16K
L2 cache: 1024K
 
Old 02-15-2016, 01:54 AM   #118
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 6,897

Rep: Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980Reputation: 1980
If you check the Flags and 'lm' isn't present that's confirmation that it's 32 bit only.
 
Old 02-15-2016, 01:55 PM   #119
FredGSanford
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Distribution: Mageia Cauldron - Debian Testing - Salix OS
Posts: 1,051
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 165Reputation: 165
Firefox but started using Chromium lately...
 
Old 03-07-2016, 11:47 PM   #120
Jon Wilob
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 28

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunne View Post
If you have a 32-bit machine, and it works, why would you buy a new machine?
Not really looking to buy a new machine but sooner than later 32 bit will be a thing of the past. My grand kids like to play the old Windoze games such as Far Cry, COD...etc. so I'll need something 32 bit I suppose to keep them running...no?? Thoughts welcome.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Browser of the Year jeremy 2013 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards 78 02-16-2014 08:32 AM
Browser of the Year jeremy 2010 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards 193 06-10-2011 11:26 AM
Browser of the Year jeremy 2007 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards 133 05-03-2008 10:50 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:52 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration