Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:38:15 -0500
From:      Rod Person <rodperson@rodperson.com>
To:        Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, birdfund@yahoo.com
Subject:   Re: i386 vs amd64
Message-ID:  <20121128133815.00005c1c.rodperson@rodperson.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121128192559.07606a71.freebsd@edvax.de>
References:  <20121128123623.4A29.AA011270@yahoo.com> <893FBAE2-FDB6-4E8F-AC66-F3D421D3BB9A@my.gd> <20121128125323.4A2E.AA011270@yahoo.com> <20121128192559.07606a71.freebsd@edvax.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:25:59 +0100
Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:53:26 -0500, mike miskulin wrote:
> > But I guess the basic question remains - are there any
> > considerations in regards ports, linux emulation, etc that would
> > sway me to remain i386?
> 
> The only problem might be if you want to use wine. As it has
> been said, there are binary packages (wine_amd64, if I remember
> correctly), but the rest of the system should run good on
> amd64 as it did on i386.
> 
> Sidenote: I switched back from 8.2/amd64 to 8.2/i386 because
> of three reasons (in fact, two reasons and one justification):
> I had problems with wine, problems with nVidia's driver (plus
> a faulty GPU), and I only have 2 GB RAM. Anywhere else, I have
> not experienced problems with amd64.
> 
> 

The nvidia driver works fine now.

Linux emulation is only 32 bit though.

-- 
Just because it can been done, does not mean it should be done.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121128133815.00005c1c.rodperson>