Hello again,

It's that time of the year again and i feel like spending some $$ on a new box.
The new box MUST work under Linux (and more precisely Slackware)

After looking around, I'll probably go for an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4600+ Socket 939 with an Asus A8Nxx motherboard.

Now, this is where the problems start for me and I would be most grateful if somebody would be kind enough to give me some pointers and indications.

Apologies in advance for my ignorance/stupid questions but i always found the whole "64 bits" thing utterly confusing.

We are talking about an Athlon 64, does this mean I need to have a specific kernel for "64 bits computing"? Will the standard Slackware work on it?
Will I be able to use the usual "32 bits" applications/packages (firefox, openoffice, etc etc ) or will i have to hunt that completely elusive "64 bits" version of the application?

I think that's all for now ...

Regards
Farf

The Athlon 64 is binary compatible with 32-bit apps, so both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels/apps can be used.

If you want to use both i.e. 64-bit kernel/base system with some 32-bit apps, then obviously you will need both 32-bit and 64-bit libraries installed (64-bit distros have 32-bit "compatibility" packages with just the required libs in (i.e. without all the docs etc, since that stuuf will be in the corresponding 64-bit package anyway)).

So, basically, you can use whatever you want. Standard Slackware will be fine. 32-bit Firefox etc work fine. I'm currently using Slamd64 which I've found to be a bit buggy, so I'm thinking of just installing Slack 11.0 for now.

I have an Athlon 64 dual core. Slackware 11.0 works fine. To take advantage of the dual core you should use the smp kernel in extras or compile your own.

From what I have read there is little performance advantage to be gained from moving to a 64 bit system. I have tried Slamd64 but always run into problems with it. The userbase for slamd64 is much smaller than that for slackware so there is much less online support.

64-bit apps can be substantially faster than 32-bit. Of course, your average desktop app probably won't see much increase, but cpu intensive apps surely will.

For example, ogg encoding a 4 minute track at -q 4.5 takes 17s on my 2GHz Athlon XP, and exactly the same on my 2GHz Athlon 64 using a 32-bit oggenc. With a 64-bit oggenc, though, it storms through in a mere 9.8s.

Likewise, a kernel compile is around 50% faster (~8 minutes vs ~12:40) using a 64-bit gcc.

i concur to that. it is faster indeed. im using slamd64 for a while now and as for the userbase, i found that the userbase for slackware(common) is more then adequate to help with all my problems so far. however i did find problems when trying to use a 32 bit os (unix) on it, keyboard and mouse not working.

I have never been confident enough in Slamd64 to devote the time to it to get it running to my satisfaction. I did install 11.0 on a spare partition once I had slackware 11.0 sorted out but have run into problems getting a satisfactory installation of Open Office and compiling Audacity. Perhaps I could sort these things out if I spent enough time on it but I am not sure whether it is worth the effort. Slamd64 11.0 was a big improvement on 10.2 IMO

11.0 WAS indeed a HUGE improvement. but as for your problem. use primarily 64 bit binaries (ofcourse) if not available try to compile it yourself as much as possible.

for open office. some apps need you to install the 32 bit libraries to run correctly (eg 32 bit jre)

i got my system fully working with 64 bit apps and 32 bit next to each other. jre1.5 (and sdk) in 32 bit and 64 bit form ( symlinked it so java32 points to 32 bit version and java to 64). if ya keep the things organized its very doable (although i think i do have a somewhat bigger hd usage then with 32 bit only >.> but that's logical)

Just a bit of experience with amd athlon 64. Was developed with winxp 64 bit in mind. amd athlon 64 is backwards compatible as is MS OS. I had a trial version of winxp 64 for six months and it worked really well, except for a few details such as no drivers for printers and such. But it was very fast esp on downloads. I did not buy the winxp 64 however. Was already thinking about weaning myself from MS.
I'm a newbie on Linux running ubuntu 6.06 64 bit. I can't say for sure it is the distro fault because I'm so new at it, but I'm also running same distro 32 bit on diff computer-- Pent 4 dual core and have far fewer problems. Just going on comments on the forums that sometimes even native software has a lot of quirks and the 32 bit supposedly backwards compatible software often gets installed and never shows its head again. I don't mean to be negative, really, but more than one forum is congratulating 64 bit disto users on being "pioneers." I really don't want to be a pioneer; I want a distro that supports the obvious advantages of 64 bit computing and lets me get my work and fun done. I barely keep my head above water without being a pioneer. I'm thinking of installing the standard 32 distro to see how it works. This 64 bit is just too much for me as a newbie; it keeps my joy out. I've asked on a couple of forums for advice about whether I should wipe the 64 bit and go with 32 bit. No one seems to want to touch the question.