only certain Linux distros can use AMD 64 bit processor

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Daeron, Feb 7, 2004.

  1. Daeron

    Daeron Guest

    MS Opens up XP 64 Beta
    Pedro Hernandez Feb 04 2004

    AMD's desktop 64-bit CPU has already begun to appear in PCs from
    several computer makers. Despite the processors' prowess at running
    32-bit operating systems and applications, only certain Linux distros
    could make full use of the chip's 64-bit potential.

    Now thanks to Microsoft, early adopters of AMD's Athlon64 and Opteron
    can run a beta version of XP 64 was previously only available to
    members of MSDN.

    http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/networking/news/article.php/3308591
     
    Daeron, Feb 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Daeron

    David Preece Guest

    Daeron wrote:
    > Despite the processors' prowess at running
    > 32-bit operating systems and applications, only certain Linux distros
    > could make full use of the chip's 64-bit potential.


    Y'know, I'm not sure if this is entirely true. It's apparently a common
    bootstrapping technique amongs the Linux x86-64 crowd to take a bog
    standard 32 bit install and just load a 64 bit kernel onto it.

    Sounds like a bit of a nightmare though,
    https://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/1314/21/debian-amd64-howto.html#id2883060

    ....and I'm reasonably uncertain of the gains from doing this, to be honest.

    Certainly only some Linux distibutions come with out of the box 64 bit
    support. Suse Enterprise Linux, for example.

    http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/server/sles/amd64.html

    Note, however, that this is final ... shipping ... tested ... supported
    software. Not a beta. Not "beta! beta! won't be released for at least a
    year! beta even by our standards!!!".

    Cheers,
    Dave
     
    David Preece, Feb 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Daeron

    Adam Warner Guest

    Hi David Preece,

    > Daeron wrote:
    >> Despite the processors' prowess at running 32-bit operating systems and
    >> applications, only certain Linux distros could make full use of the
    >> chip's 64-bit potential.

    >
    > Y'know, I'm not sure if this is entirely true. It's apparently a common
    > bootstrapping technique amongs the Linux x86-64 crowd to take a bog
    > standard 32 bit install and just load a 64 bit kernel onto it.
    >
    > Sounds like a bit of a nightmare though,
    > https://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/1314/21/debian-amd64-howto.html#id2883060
    >
    > ...and I'm reasonably uncertain of the gains from doing this, to be
    > honest.
    >
    > Certainly only some Linux distibutions come with out of the box 64 bit
    > support. Suse Enterprise Linux, for example.
    >
    > http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/server/sles/amd64.html
    >
    > Note, however, that this is final ... shipping ... tested ... supported
    > software. Not a beta. Not "beta! beta! won't be released for at least a
    > year! beta even by our standards!!!".


    The subject heading was a nice troll. The fact that SuSE is already
    shipping a tested and supported AMD64 Linux distribution is due to the
    prevalence of open source drivers. If people needed hardware manufactures
    to release 64-bit Linux binary drivers then many of the AMD64 boxes would
    have only been useful as x86-32 computers.

    There's talk of a Wintel conspiracy to not retail x86-64 Windows until
    Intel is ready with a clone. It's much easier to believe that Microsoft
    requires OEMs to do their own driver development, and until the OEMs do a
    quality job x86-64 Windows will remain buggy and beta software.

    I enjoyed this description of the issues involved in building a
    bi-architecture Linux distribution (it's not yet archived by Google
    Groups so I took liberty in posting it below).

    Regards,
    Adam

    Subject: Re: only certain Linux distros can use AMD 64 bit processor
    From: Tony Hill <>
    Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
    Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:53:38 GMT

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:30:02 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
    <> wrote:
    >Daeron <> wrote:
    >> only certain Linux distros could make
    >> full use of the chip's 64-bit potential.

    >
    >This is misleading even if literally true.
    >
    >A new kernel is required by _any_ OS before new CPU features
    >can be safely used. The OS has to be aware of the new features
    >/registers to be able to save & restore them on task switches,
    >or to schedule their use. This applies for SMP, SSE2, SMT
    >and now x32-64.
    >
    >With Linux or *BSD, this new kernel is extremely simple to
    >install. Just download upgraded kernel source, configure,
    >compile and install. With MS-Win*, y0ou have to wait until
    >MS releases and upgrades to their kernel, and hope the licence
    >terms are not onerous.
    >
    >kernel != distro .


    MUCH more than the kernel is required, at least if you want it to be
    halfway useful as a 64-bit processor. Sure, you COULD just throw a
    64-bit kernel on a 32-bit machine, but you wouldn't be able to run any
    dynamically linked 64-bit applications (pretty much all applications
    beyond "Hello world" are dynamically linked these days).

    AMD64 introduced a rather new problem to Linux and *BSD; it's a
    bi-arch system. The Athlon64 and Opteron support both AMD64 code and
    IA32 code natively, and while there have been a few other processors
    that could do this natively (UltraSparc and Itanium jump to mind
    here), usually the Linux folk haven't bothered supporting the "legacy"
    architecture. With the Athlon64 and Opteron, they do.

    What this means, in terms of Linux, is that to get a fully functional
    AMD64 system you need two sets of libraries, one compiled for AMD64
    and one compiled for IA32. You also need a kernel and a bit of glue
    to get this all working together. Linux now supports this fairly
    well, but it took a little while to get there. If you look at many of
    the distributions out there you'll find that they started out as
    64-bit only for the AMD64 platform for just this reason.


    So, while it is theoretically possible to role your own AMD64 port
    from an existing IA32 port, it's not a very easy task, especially if
    you want to make it a bi-arch (AMD64/IA32) port. Since there are
    still some common apps that aren't 64-bit clean (eg KDE) and some
    fairly important binary-only packages that aren't available for AMD64
    yet (eg a Java JRE until about 3 days ago), a bi-arch port is a REAL
    good thing to have.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
     
    Adam Warner, Feb 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Daeron

    Gordon Guest

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 09:06:24 -0800, Daeron wrote:

    > AMD's desktop 64-bit CPU has already begun to appear in PCs from
    > several computer makers. Despite the processors' prowess at running
    > 32-bit operating systems and applications, only certain Linux distros
    > could make full use of the chip's 64-bit potential.


    For now, the Penguin is working on it. I have read that the 2.6 kernel is
    fast.

    --
    Fairy stories exist so children get used to real life
     
    Gordon, Feb 8, 2004
    #4
  5. Daeron

    Lennier Guest

    On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:14:57 +1300, Gordon wrote:

    > I have read that the 2.6 kernel is
    > fast.


    Indeed it is! That is what my box has got under the bonnet.


    Lennier

    --
    Brian Valentine - Microsoft's SVP for Windows development: "We
    really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our
    products just aren't engineered for security."
     
    Lennier, Feb 8, 2004
    #5
  6. Daeron

    Daeron Guest

    Adam Warner <> wrote in message news:<>...

    [..]

    > The subject heading was a nice troll. The fact that SuSE is already
    > shipping a tested and supported AMD64 Linux distribution is due to the
    > prevalence of open source drivers ...


    [..]

    Yes it struck me as a new form of distro fud. I just was not
    sufficiently qualified to refute it. Thanks for the response.
     
    Daeron, Feb 8, 2004
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Frozen Canuck
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    843
    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]
    Jan 16, 2006
  2. CollectorNZ

    Live Linux Distros

    CollectorNZ, Feb 18, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    547
    harry
    Feb 20, 2004
  3. PAM.
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    380
    Lawrence DĀ¹Oliveiro
    Jul 21, 2005
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Graphc showing derivations of the various Linux distros

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 14, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    324
    -=rjh=-
    Apr 14, 2006
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    352 Linux distros

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 18, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,154
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Dec 27, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page