Hi all,
I have a new Dell intel core 2 system. After reading that the core2 and amdx86-64 dual core chips are almost identical, I installed the x86_64 version of scientific linux 5 (enterprise 5) instead of the x86 verson. I've had some config problems, and have now started wondering if I installed the correct version.

The machine will be used for software development, amongst other things.

Which is the proper version of the OS to install on an intel core 2 system, x86 or x86_64?

Thanks in advance,
marty

What config problems are you having?

The core 2 microarchitecture is x86-64 compatible, so you should be OK with the version you installed. As DeusExLinuxs said, you should tell us about your exact problems...

Also, despite the fact that it's been around for a while, 64-bit is still in its infancy. Many applications/plugins still aren't available for the 64-bit platform, and even the ones that are don't have significant speed advantages--with the exception of heavy number crunching. I'd say you would do just as well to go for the standard x86.

Years ago, people had the same comments about 16-bit vs. 32-bit. 64-bit is the future. I run 64-bit versions of Ubuntu, openSUSE, and Fedora. They all seem fine and off the top of my head cannot think of anything that I use that does not work as expected that is also a 64-bit specific problem.

Scientific ??? for a reason ???
Stick with 64-bit if you can

Did they ever release a version of Flash for the 64bit (otherwise you have to run it in a chroot enviro, which can be a pain)?

I didn't really notice a speed boost, and when everything (even proprietary) is 64bit read, then it might be worth it. I just found it to be a pain in the but to set up a 32 bit enviro in my 64 to run simple things like flash.

The last news I saw stated that there will not be a 64-bit version of Flash for anyone--including 64-bit Windows until version 10. Regarding running it on Linux, the nswrapper_32_64.libflashplayer.so wrapper seems to work fine.

Yes, everything runs fine. In fact, I run 64-bit versions of my OSes just for the "cool factor," I guess. In reality, there's no true advantage. Yes, it's the wave of the future. There's no doubt about that. But that future isn't quite realized yet. And while it may be argued that the more people that use a 64-bit OS the better the chances of catching bugs and improving performance, most people don't want to deal with that hassle. Many people want something that "just works." They don't want to go through the hassle of running and managing both 32- and 64-bit.

As far as specific 64-bit problems, I've had problems with both Flash and Java. I can run the 32-bit OS counterparts fine, but in the 64-bit OS there are some hiccups to get around. I don't mind that, of course, but I imagine a lot of people don't want to deal with that.

Then there are those that will say to the above, "Don't use Linux." But the point of Linux isn't doing difficult or annoying things. It's freeing people from corporate constraint. Linux isn't an elitist system (not anymore, at least)--everyday people should be able to do everyday things with ease.

Hmm. I'm getting off topic. Sorry. /end rant

Anyway. Point is--the future isn't here yet. If you're interested in bleeding edge, want a few minor performance gains (or major depending on the purpose of your machine), and don't mind finding bugs or working around a few problems that spring up now and then, get a 64-bit OS. If you want something that "just works," grab a 32-bit OS like Ubuntu or Mandriva.