I went to the Debian website
http://www.debian.org/releases/squee...ian-installer/
I started reading all of the documentation and the install manual today.
While on the web site I was not able to determine which ISO image I should obtain?

I think ( I have a 32bit processor) but I want to be certain w/o any doubt-

How would I know which processor I have?

In regard to the hardware in my system " non-free firmware to be loaded " Is there a way for me to know if this firmware is required?

I don't know these things and need help; please advise

Some computers boot up to a screen that flashes the processor. That alone is not the entire story. A fully 64 bit processor may be in a faulty or less than fully 64 bit motherboard. Some info may be found in bios too.

Most people try a 64 bit and it will tell you that it won't work when you try to install it. On the other hand you really can't go wrong with a 32 bit. If you have no idea of your computer it would be safe to pick the 32 bit version.

Some linux and other tools have ways to tell a lot about a system. One is this http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/

I don't think I'd worry about firmware but now you have me wondering. What is the name of this odd computer you have?

Other than some netbooks, the vast majority of all machines made in the last ~5 years have been fully 64-bit capable. However, unless you:
a) have more than 64GB of RAM, or
b) intend to use any program that will consume more than 3GB of RAM in a single process

then the 32-bit should be perfectly fine.

This computer was designed by the Manufacturer named ZT.

I will choose 32 bit as you have advised. Hope that means i386.

As far as the firmware goes I read the documentation and the Debian-installer will offer me a dialog to load the missing firmware, scan devices or packages containing the firmware- I (think) it only applies for the wireless NIC and well....in my case I have one.
Further instruction advises me to put the firmware files in either the root directory or a directory named /firmware. In which I hope that I am not prompted for this sounds complicated-

Thanks for the confirmation of 32-bit.

I think this ZT machine is 3.25 MG and is a AND Phenom ( looking at an old receipt from Staples.)

[QUOTE=Ztcoracat;4740319]Thanks for the confirmation of 32-bit.

I think this ZT machine is 3.25 MG and is a AMD Phenom quad core ( looking at an old receipt from Staples.) A large emblem on the front of the tower is a orange square in white letters-
It's about 3 years old-

It does

I would recommend trying out a live CD/DVD first before doing any installation. That will let you know right away whether or not you're going to have any trouble with your hardware (wireless, video, etc.). In my experience, modern Linux releases have gotten much, much better in regards to misc hardware drivers being incorporated into the kernel than they used to be a few years ago.

Suicidaleggroll:

Good advise taken. I'll try the cd/dvd first like you said.
I sincerely hope there aren't any issue's with hardware and your right; the drivers are being incorporated now.

Three years ago I had to go and get packages, firmware and drivers for Ubuntu to work. That was interesting to say the least for a first time Linux user.

Looking forward to having a stable distribution.

Thank You

Indeed, it wasn't long ago that it was basically guaranteed you would have to compile the kernel modules for several bits of hardware yourself in order for everything to work right. It's probably a combination of manufacturers starting to use more "standardized" hardware, and the drivers for more hardware being incorporated into the kernel, but I know on the three most recent laptops I've tried (Asus EEE PC 1000 from several years ago, a Dell Inspiron from a year ago, and a brand new Lenovo T420S), every single distro I've loaded up has worked 100% out of the box, from wireless to display resolution to sound.

This compiling that new users had to do to aid the kernel was IMO not efficient.

Perhaps the future will hold a place where there is sufficient communication between the software engineer and the developer.
And, IMO in the past the experts were maybe rushed then to produce-

That's what I'm looking for: works 100% out of the box-

The Dell Inspiron is popular according to Consumer Reports-
I have my eye on a Sony Vaio 2nd generation 64-bit 6 GB RAM 500GB HDD; might put Linux Mint on it-

Getting back to reading all of the documentation now.

Thanks; again-

Theres a few ways.

lshw-

x86-64, its 64-bit. Some versions of lshw will return 'lm' for 64bit as well.

BIOS- During boot, your CPU type will appear on the screen- in my case, I get "AMD Phenom II X2 550". Unless you have some splash screen which is pretty common, then you will need to go into the BIOS to either turn the slapsh screen off, or just check in the BIOS. The CPU type is displayed in the BIOS with every BIOS I've ever used (though with some of them you need to poke around in the BIOS to find it).

You can also get the CPU type from in windows. Err....right click on 'my computer', its on the page somewhere, I forget where, I dont have a windows machine near me right now, I'll check later when my housemate boots up windwos to play some games.

Edit- XP, right click on my computer-> properties-> 'general' tab. CPU type is listed.

You can also check the motherboard visually as well. If yuo know the CPU socket, or can get the motherboard band/model number, you can figure out what type of CPU its running.

Once you have the CPU type, checking in wikipedia is easiest IMO. Yeah, I know, some people think that wiki is unreliable, but for this I'm yet to find any mistakes at all. Just do a search in the search engine of your choice, List of CPU family (list of pentium 4, list of phenom II, etc.) You'll get a page like this-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors


Basic rule of thumb- AMD CPUs will be 64bit if they are "Athlon 64" or later. If its x86 and multicore (intel or AMD), its 64bit capable. Intel single core CPUs are more complicated, as intel used 64bit extensions on and off depending on how much you paid. Eg-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...sors#Pentium_4

AMD got its 64bit capable CPUs out in late 2003. Thats over 8 years ago. For a while, 64bit did have some issues (like flash being 32bit only for a while). Those problems are over. I've been running 64bit on all my 64bit capable machines for a few years now, and never had any issues.

32bit will run fine on a 64bit x86 system. The only reason to use 32bit IMO is if you have some odd software that doesnt like multilib (build and run 32bit programs on a 64bit system) or if you are very short on RAM (as 64bit will use a bit more RAM than 32bit). I even run 64bit on a 1GB system. If I was using it for general use, I'm probably run 32bit as 1GB of RAM these days isnt much. 1-1.5GB is the break point as far as I'm concerned, I wouldnt run 32bit on a 64bit capable system with 2GB or more RAM even for general use.

Even a few years ago, with 2GB, 64bit had minor performance improvments in general and major improvements in some areas over 32bit-

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubun...bit-benchmarks

If you're got a Phenom with a decent amount of RAM, I cant see any reason to use 32bit. Sure, preformance improvemetns are huge for general use, but why 'cripple' you system, even slightly?

The only time I've heard of this is with 'early' (pentium 4) 64bit intel systems. I've never herard of it happening with AMD athlon 64 or later CPUs/motherboards, or intels from Core2Duo or later.

The 1GB/64bit system I'm running is a AMD 3000+ ('Venice', early 2005). No issues at all.....

I do have the original book that is associated with the motherboard. I don't know the CPU socket. Till you said so; I didn't know; thank you

I would not want to cripple my system even slightly-
Thank You for the websites for assistance-

The terminal cautioned me to use the command as a super user....was not awarestill learning)

Does x86-64 indicate 64 bit or am I confused ?

Yep, x86-64 is 64bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64