I would like Just a bit of advice about Fc8?

[Phil Meyer]

Rick Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:14 -0700, Craig White wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 09:08 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:59 -0500, William Case wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Hi all;
>>>>
>>>> I should know but I haven't gotten it clear in my mind.  I am going to
>>>> download Fc8 in the next couple of days and I am not sure whether to go
>>>> for i386 or x86_64?
>>>>
>>>> I have an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 Dual-Core processor on a ASUS M2NPV-VM
>>>> motherboard on a desktop with a small household LAN .  I am not heavy
>>>> user of data bases etc.  I am mainly a SOHO type user, with ordinary one
>>>> person requirements.  I.e. OpenOffice, Firefox etc.
>>>>
>>>> Previously I have been told (maybe here, maybe somewhere else) that I
>>>> will get better usage as i386 until the applications for x86_64 are in
>>>> better shape.  I have been watching the to-and-fro-ing regarding i386
>>>> and x86_64 on this list regarding Fc7 over the last few months.
>>>>
>>>> So, I am just looking for a bit of advice about which would be the most
>>>> appropriate for me, and people like me, to install; Fc8_i386 or Fc8_x64?
>>>>         
>>> Unless you need the memory or extra horsepower that a 64-bit gives you
>>> (and it sounds like you really don't), then I'd stick with the 32-bit
>>> version.  Most of the 64-bit applications are up to snuff, but there's
>>> some third-party stuff that's not there yet (e.g. a 64-bit FLASH plugin
>>> for Firefox).
>>>       
>> ----
>> I've been getting by with nsplugin-wrapper package on F7-x86_64 with my
>> users and no one has been complaining (that allows 32 bit plugins such
>> as flash and acrobat-plugin to work).
>>     
>
> Yes, I'm aware of it.  It has been problematic at times for me (some
> plugins badly misbehave under it on some hardware platforms).  None the
> less, it's a stopgap measure, it doesn't always work and I can't
> recommend it unless you understand what problems may come along with its
> use.
>
> On the other hand, Adobe's had MORE than adequate time to put a 64-bit
> plugin out there.  We've had 64-bit Linux for how long now?  Two years
> at least.  C'mon, gang!  Fire up the compilers and let's go!
>   

The problem is much deeper than ISVs not porting to 64 bit systems.

1. SUN has been building 64 bit systems for many years.  All SUN 
platforms sold from late 1997 on have been 64 bit. That is 10 years now. 
  Where is the 64 bit Java?

2. Itanium was a bomb (sales wise) and intel and HP are now twice bitten 
on 64 bit platforms for commodity users.

3. Microsoft has no reason to go to 64 bit platforms and barely pays lip 
service to it in order to manage large account requirements.

4. AMD's success building a 64bit commodity 686 compatible CPUs is what 
motivated intel to bolt it onto all current intel CPUs.

5. It is still quite impossible for consumers to recognize 64bit capable 
CPUs from marketing materials and part numbers for many main line 
products.  Test:  Which intel Core Duo models are 64bit capable?  Test: 
Are there AMD Turion models that are 64bit capable that do NOT have 64 
in their name?

So with the heart of US based computing services all dragging their 
heals on 64 bit platforms, ISVs are extremely reluctant to even look at it.

If Microsoft actually did what they said they would do (and what they 
should have done) and release a 64bit only Vista, then Adobe (and 
everyone else) would already be there.

So were they really serious about going to 64bit based platforms?

For myself, the actions of a company speak for that company.