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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121128133815.00005c1c.rodperson>