Talk:Intel (x86) - Quick Install Guide
Silicon.wolf (Talk | contribs) m (Talk:AMD64 - Installing FreeBSD moved to Talk:Intel (x86) - Quick Install Guide: more accuracy. and well, there's not too many differences between x86 and x86-64/AMD64 install. So, in such instances, I will note special instructions for x64) |
m (Reverted edits by 199.15.234.226 (Talk) to last revision by Jimbo) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
I've been running amd64 FreeBSD for several years now. No hitches. Everything works fine. There were some missing ports back in the 5.1 days, but those all showed back up again pretty quickly - they weren't kidding when they said "Tier 1." It's worth noting that I primarily (almost exclusively) use FreeBSD on the server side, not the workstation side, but from my perspective there is literally no difference whatsoever in usage from running x86-64 instead of i386. --[[User:Jimbo|Jimbo]] 09:29, 20 November 2007 (EST) | I've been running amd64 FreeBSD for several years now. No hitches. Everything works fine. There were some missing ports back in the 5.1 days, but those all showed back up again pretty quickly - they weren't kidding when they said "Tier 1." It's worth noting that I primarily (almost exclusively) use FreeBSD on the server side, not the workstation side, but from my perspective there is literally no difference whatsoever in usage from running x86-64 instead of i386. --[[User:Jimbo|Jimbo]] 09:29, 20 November 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == figured it out == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Actually, the reason I need the 32b libraries is to build wine against... seeing as I can't find a 64bit for Unix, and while i DO LOVE unix... oh how have I fallen in love with it... lol... I still have a couple of wintendoze apps I'd like to run... (iTunes) :) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was simply having a problem getting the distro from a mirror that had it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Perhaps... == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Loves Unix, needs iTunes... isn't that called Apple OS X?? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Peek underneath and you might see bits of FreeBSD there too ;-) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:58, 15 August 2011
Dunno - I've never really needed the 32-bit compatibility layer, 'cause I use ports, not packages. Is there a specific reason you need 32-bit? You do realize you're MUCH better off with 64-bit code on a 64-bit platform, right? --Jimbo 20:35, 19 November 2007 (EST)
Contents |
[edit] May be from the other camp...
...namely the Redmond crowd, but when I was looking into running 32bit applications on 64bit Windows (I'm still very much a FreeBSD guy!) I did read that applications of a 32bit nature could run fine on 64bit host operating system however you couldn't compile against different "bitness" libraries (or DLLs as I guess they would be under Windows). In other words, a 64bit application using a 32bit library.
I know this is Microsoft's world but I would presume that, being the operating system level or 'kernel', it is probably similar on all OSes, FreeBSD included.
My guess is that the kernel can switch to 32bit mode and run an application with all its dependent libraries since they are all 32bit - an application couldn't ask the kernel to stop, switch to 64bit mode for the application to access a 64bit library during its execution.
That said, I agree with Jimbo on using ports to alleviate any such issues.
I am in the process of creating a VMWare Server on a quad core Intel 64bit CPU and intend trying the x64 version of FreeBSD on it as a 64bit guest (amongst other experiments to document as articles here). While Intel's ia64 is listed as "Tier 2" for support I cannot find anything to say the AMD specific ("Tier 1") x64 version won't run on Intel 64bit. Anyone care to confirm?
As another question, not of use to me since I stay native with ports, but may be of relevance to other people - how does the linux compatibility layer function under x64? Is there an x64 specific support layer? Alternatively, like Microsoft, since its a layer of 'emulation' can it also encapsulate and run 32bit linux applications 'as is'?
Doctor Modiford 08:46, 20 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] ia64 != x86-64
Your Intel box is x86-64, not ia64 - you'll be running the Tier 1 platform, not the Tier 2. Itanium != x86-64/amd64; that's the Tier 2.
I've been running amd64 FreeBSD for several years now. No hitches. Everything works fine. There were some missing ports back in the 5.1 days, but those all showed back up again pretty quickly - they weren't kidding when they said "Tier 1." It's worth noting that I primarily (almost exclusively) use FreeBSD on the server side, not the workstation side, but from my perspective there is literally no difference whatsoever in usage from running x86-64 instead of i386. --Jimbo 09:29, 20 November 2007 (EST)
[edit] figured it out
Actually, the reason I need the 32b libraries is to build wine against... seeing as I can't find a 64bit for Unix, and while i DO LOVE unix... oh how have I fallen in love with it... lol... I still have a couple of wintendoze apps I'd like to run... (iTunes) :)
I was simply having a problem getting the distro from a mirror that had it.
[edit] Perhaps...
Loves Unix, needs iTunes... isn't that called Apple OS X??
Peek underneath and you might see bits of FreeBSD there too ;-)
