Hi Folks, Once upon a time I didn't need to ask this kind of question ... I'm about to install Linux (probably Debian) on a laptop which has an Intel Core Duo T2390 CPU. So I'm wondering whether it I should use i386 or ia64. I *think* (but am not sure) that this chip has 64-bit capability (though that may need to be enabled somehow). Presumably i386 would work anyway, but it would be nice to enjoy the benefits of 64-bit architecture if available! Since this is my first time facing this question, I'm totally naive about the installation implications, and would welcome informed advice and/or comments! With thanks, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 27-Mar-09 Time: 14:51:24 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
Ted, All the Intel Core Duo chips are 64-bit IIRC, but you are correct - they will run x32 fine. You should be aware, however, that you will need to use x64 or amd64 (depending on the notation) ia64 is the older Itanium 64-bit architecture and won't work. Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Harding" <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> To: main@lists.alug.org.uk Sent: Friday, 27 March, 2009 14:51:27 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: [ALUG] 32/64-bit? Intel T2390 Hi Folks, Once upon a time I didn't need to ask this kind of question ... I'm about to install Linux (probably Debian) on a laptop which has an Intel Core Duo T2390 CPU. So I'm wondering whether it I should use i386 or ia64. I *think* (but am not sure) that this chip has 64-bit capability (though that may need to be enabled somehow). Presumably i386 would work anyway, but it would be nice to enjoy the benefits of 64-bit architecture if available! Since this is my first time facing this question, I'm totally naive about the installation implications, and would welcome informed advice and/or comments! With thanks, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 27-Mar-09 Time: 14:51:24 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
Hi, 2009/3/27 Ted Harding <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk>:
Hi Folks, Once upon a time I didn't need to ask this kind of question ...
I'm about to install Linux (probably Debian) on a laptop which has an Intel Core Duo T2390 CPU.
I'm sure others will be able to correct me, but AFAIK, Core Duo's are not 64bit, but Core 2 Duo's are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_duo agrees with me. (but then be very careful with using Wikipedia as a reference..) Srdjan
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:51:27 -0000 (GMT) (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> allegedly wrote:
Hi Folks, Once upon a time I didn't need to ask this kind of question ...
I'm about to install Linux (probably Debian) on a laptop which has an Intel Core Duo T2390 CPU.
So I'm wondering whether it I should use i386 or ia64.
Ted The processor will happily take a 64 bit installation - and that is the one I'd recommend, particularly if you want access to memory > 4Gig. But there are one or two applications (adobe flash comes to mind) which don't have native 64 bit capabilities (though I think they may have addressed this in Flash 10...). Others on the list may have experience of the odd application which has problems. Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this? Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:07:01PM +0000, mick wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:51:27 -0000 (GMT) (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> allegedly wrote:
Hi Folks, Once upon a time I didn't need to ask this kind of question ...
I'm about to install Linux (probably Debian) on a laptop which has an Intel Core Duo T2390 CPU.
So I'm wondering whether it I should use i386 or ia64.
Ted
The processor will happily take a 64 bit installation - and that is the one I'd recommend, particularly if you want access to memory > 4Gig.
But there are one or two applications (adobe flash comes to mind) which don't have native 64 bit capabilities (though I think they may have addressed this in Flash 10...). Others on the list may have experience of the odd application which has problems.
I run xubuntu 8.10 64-bit on an Intel Core bla bla processor. There are *very* few issues with 64-bit now. I used to run a 32-bit version of Firefox because of issues with plugins but now I've moved to a 64-bit Firefox and (at least in Ubuntu) everything seems to play nicely. I had a minor issue with Java because I needed the 'proper' Sun Java and so I had to install that manually to get the 64-bit plugin but I think that's the only 64-bit issue I've had. The default Java installation works fine in 64-bit, I just needed something it didn't provide. -- Chris Green
On 27-Mar-09 16:22:13, Chris G wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:07:01PM +0000, mick wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:51:27 -0000 (GMT) (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> allegedly wrote:
[I plead guilty to all charges, m'Lud]
Hi Folks, Once upon a time I didn't need to ask this kind of question ...
I'm about to install Linux (probably Debian) on a laptop which has an Intel Core Duo T2390 CPU.
So I'm wondering whether it I should use i386 or ia64.
Ted
The processor will happily take a 64 bit installation - and that is the one I'd recommend, particularly if you want access to memory > 4Gig.
But there are one or two applications (adobe flash comes to mind) which don't have native 64 bit capabilities (though I think they may have addressed this in Flash 10...). Others on the list may have experience of the odd application which has problems.
I run xubuntu 8.10 64-bit on an Intel Core bla bla processor. There are *very* few issues with 64-bit now. I used to run a 32-bit version of Firefox because of issues with plugins but now I've moved to a 64-bit Firefox and (at least in Ubuntu) everything seems to play nicely. I had a minor issue with Java because I needed the 'proper' Sun Java and so I had to install that manually to get the 64-bit plugin but I think that's the only 64-bit issue I've had. The default Java installation works fine in 64-bit, I just needed something it didn't provide.
-- Chris Green
Thanks to all who have responded so promptly! (Keep coming if you have anything to add). I think the gaps in my knowledge have been filled, and I feel that my uncertainties are resolved. Chris: Your Ubuntu experience looks good! I've been running a Debian Etch for about 15 months, and on the whole feel very happy with it. I've also test-driven Ubuntu a few times. My impression is that Debian is, on the whole, rock-solid, but it seems to me that the setup of /etc/apt/sources.list is less transparent than I would like! It's not clear what one should do with it to widen its scope. And I have at various times had what seem to be unresolvable problems with dependencies, of the form package XYZ depends on ABC and it is not going to be installed which at times have led me round in circles, each thing depending on something else which "is not going to be installed" until you come back to where you started! So I've become a bit wary of Debian. Also, I have the impression that, once Debian has moved on from its current version, you're forgotten about. Plus, Debian have a very purist attitude about what software they will admit to their repositories. On the other hand, Ubuntu is more liberal and seems to have more concern for "user happiness". But, that said, I can do without a lot of the Ubuntu "candy" -- I like a "clean & lean" system. And my main usage is in technical areas -- especially statistical and mathemtical computing, and typesetting, so I'd favour a distribution which caters well for those areas. On the whole, it seems Debian is well suited for that. My "test flights" of Ubuntu have not gone as far as digging deeply into its capabilities on such fronts. So, while I have also been considering an Ubuntu installation as an alternative to Debian, I'm not sure whether it is the wisest choice. My attitude to a Linux distribution is that, once set up and running, it will on the whole stay as it is while I just use it. Although I have gone along with Debian's propositions for upgrades (with few regrets), I always feel a bit uneasy about it! And I suspect that Ubuntu may be even "busier" on that front than Debian. One final question: Debian have very recently released their latest "stable" (5.0.0 "lenny" on February 14th, 2009). It seems that the next Ubuntu released is due in the very near future -- but I have not managed to discover a definite planned release date. Does anyone know? Thanks again, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 27-Mar-09 Time: 18:19:26 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:19:28 -0000 (GMT) (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> allegedly wrote:
One final question: Debian have very recently released their latest "stable" (5.0.0 "lenny" on February 14th, 2009). It seems that the next Ubuntu released is due in the very near future -- but I have not managed to discover a definite planned release date. Does anyone know?
Ted Apart from the long term support (LTS) versions, Ubuntu's release cycles (and consequent support) are fairly short. There is a new desktop and server release every six months. The version numbers reflect the release date - so 7.10 was released in October 2007, whilst 8.04 was released in April 08. The current stable version is 8.10 (October) and the next stable relesae will be some time next month (making it 9.04). Standard six monthly stable versions are supported (in terms of security updates) for 18 months after release on both the desktop and the server. LTS versions are supported for three years on the desktop and five years on the server. Upgrades between LTS versions are well supported, but attempting to upgrade across normal releases can be tricky if you want to skip a release (going from say 7.10 to 8.10 without going through 8.04). Which version you use can depend on your appetite for change. Yes, using Ubuntu can give you access to more up to date packages than sticking with plain Debian, but Debian is rock solid (which is why I prefer it for servers) whilst Ubuntu can be a bit "bleeding edge" at times. I use 8.04 LTS on my main desktop machine because I like stability and that particular release actually does all that I want. I installed 8.10 on a spare machine and found that it actually stopped me using a few multi-media applications I have come to depend on because it moved the ffmpeg libraries into Ubuntu main and out of medibuntu. The version supplied in 8.10 is crippled. Sure I could compile from scratch, but I actually like the debian repository model (it is HEAPS better than the garbage that is RPM) and prefer to be able to to just update/upgrade binaries from trusted repositories as necessary). I use xubuntu 8.10 on my whizzy new acer aspire though. So, you have a choice, install 8.04 LTS or wait a week or two for 9.04 to become final. Even then, I'd wait a few more weeks after release so that others can experience the potential gotchas and get them fixed. If you do go for 9.04, let us know how you get on. Mick --------------------------------------------------------------------- The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this? Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 18:19 +0000, Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
My impression is that Debian is, on the whole, rock-solid, but it seems to me that the setup of /etc/apt/sources.list is less transparent than I would like!
Synaptic offers a GUI method of activating additional repositories, and even adding 3rd party ones.
On the other hand, Ubuntu is more liberal and seems to have more concern for "user happiness". But, that said, I can do without a lot of the Ubuntu "candy" -- I like a "clean & lean" system. And my main usage is in technical areas -- especially statistical and mathemtical computing, and typesetting, so I'd favour a distribution which caters well for those areas. On the whole, it seems Debian is well suited for that. My "test flights" of Ubuntu have not gone as far as digging deeply into its capabilities on such fronts.
There are plenty of Ubuntu flavours that offer a minimal type installation rather than the full gnome experience. Have a look at crunchbang or xubuntu. I don't know what sort of packages you aren't finding in the debian repositories though. About the only thing I have found missing recently is cinepaint and given the state of the project as a whole I am not surprised they lost their Debian maintainer...I can't even contact the author at the moment to help him fix his sourceforge checkout scripts (all his email bounces with unrouteable address)
So, while I have also been considering an Ubuntu installation as an alternative to Debian, I'm not sure whether it is the wisest choice. My attitude to a Linux distribution is that, once set up and running, it will on the whole stay as it is while I just use it.
This is a potentially dangerous attitude because vulnerabilities such as the relatively recent OpenSSH weakness would leave you potentially open to attack or your machine open to attack others. Generally a standard apt-get upgrade will not do anything drastic like remove packages, modify configurations, jump major version numbers etc. Even if you have no open inbound ports you could still be sitting vulnerable to say a serious flaw in Firefox. In short, on any networked OS always install the updates :)
One final question: Debian have very recently released their latest "stable" (5.0.0 "lenny" on February 14th, 2009). It seems that the next Ubuntu released is due in the very near future -- but I have not managed to discover a definite planned release date. Does anyone know?
April 23rd, 2009 although you can install it in alpha state today. However if you don't like updating the OS every 6 months then I would recommend you sit on the last LTS release (8.04) as at least security updates will be available up to and beyond the next LTS release in April 2010, although of course running LTS means you are on older versions of everything.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 06:19:28PM -0000, Ted Harding wrote:
On 27-Mar-09 16:22:13, Chris G wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:07:01PM +0000, mick wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:51:27 -0000 (GMT) (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk> allegedly wrote:
On the other hand, Ubuntu is more liberal and seems to have more concern for "user happiness". But, that said, I can do without a lot of the Ubuntu "candy" -- I like a "clean & lean" system. And my main usage is in technical areas -- especially statistical and mathemtical computing, and typesetting, so I'd favour a distribution which caters well for those areas. On the whole, it seems Debian is well suited for that. My "test flights" of Ubuntu have not gone as far as digging deeply into its capabilities on such fronts.
Yes, I'd agree in a sense, Ubuntu is aiming at 'the masses' in many ways. I'm use the xubuntu version of Ubuntu which is xfce based and thus somewhat leaner than either Ubuntu (Gnome) or Kubuntu (KDE).
So, while I have also been considering an Ubuntu installation as an alternative to Debian, I'm not sure whether it is the wisest choice. My attitude to a Linux distribution is that, once set up and running, it will on the whole stay as it is while I just use it. Although I have gone along with Debian's propositions for upgrades (with few regrets), I always feel a bit uneasy about it! And I suspect that Ubuntu may be even "busier" on that front than Debian.
Ubuntu keeps things as safe as it can for any particular release, i.e. you get bug fixes and security fixes but it doesn't generally upgrade to new versions of software just "because they're there" until you move to a new version of Ubuntu. What I do like about Ubuntu is that there is a well defined upgrade path from version to version.
One final question: Debian have very recently released their latest "stable" (5.0.0 "lenny" on February 14th, 2009). It seems that the next Ubuntu released is due in the very near future -- but I have not managed to discover a definite planned release date. Does anyone know?
I think Ubuntu 9.4 is due 27th April. The releases are *always* April and October (hence the .4 and .10). The next LTS (Long Term Support) release is 10.4 due in April 2010. -- Chris Green
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 09:58 +0000, Chris G wrote:
The releases are *always* April and October (hence the .4 and .10).
Except the ones that aren't like 6.06 LTS :) Seriously though the normal schedule is a 6 monthly release that happens to fall in April and October, the first LTS release was delayed and there is a chance chance subsequent ones could be.
On 27 Mar 14:51, Ted Harding wrote:
Hi Folks, Once upon a time I didn't need to ask this kind of question ...
I'm about to install Linux (probably Debian) on a laptop which has an Intel Core Duo T2390 CPU.
So I'm wondering whether it I should use i386 or ia64.
Well, even if it is 64 bit, you're not going to want ia64! IA64 is, err, IIRC, now just in a handful of server implementations - 64bit laptops and desktops etc that fall in the x86-64 camp would be the debian amd64 flavour.
I *think* (but am not sure) that this chip has 64-bit capability (though that may need to be enabled somehow). Presumably i386 would work anyway, but it would be nice to enjoy the benefits of 64-bit architecture if available!
Have you got, or are likely to have > 3.5G of memory in the laptop? If not, you're probably better off sticking to the i386 version (which, actually, in Debian, is i486 - but they haven't change the name! :)
Since this is my first time facing this question, I'm totally naive about the installation implications, and would welcome informed advice and/or comments!
I run both 64 and 32 bit machines - my laptop is running the i386 flavour of debian unstable, but then, that really is just a 32 bit machine - my older laptop is an amd64 and is running the amd64 flavour, there are issues, such as flash which currently kills the browser on the amd64 as the 64 bit flash plugin is shockingly broken! So, really, it comes down to what you want to do with the laptop - if it's for browsing and trudging around and isn't going to have more than 3.5G of memory, you're probably best sticking to an i386 base. Thanks, -- Brett Parker
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 02:51:27PM -0000, Ted Harding wrote:
I *think* (but am not sure) that this chip has 64-bit capability (though that may need to be enabled somehow). Presumably i386 would work anyway, but it would be nice to enjoy the benefits of 64-bit architecture if available!
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLA4H < says it is 64bit (the EM64T bit).
Since this is my first time facing this question, I'm totally naive about the installation implications, and would welcome informed advice and/or comments!
You'll need to use the 64bit install cd and then just carry on as normal. Thanks Adam -- jabberid = quinophex@jabber.earth.li
participants (8)
-
Adam Bower -
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
Jim Rippon -
mick -
Srdjan Todorovic -
Ted.Harding＠manchester.ac.uk -
Wayne Stallwood