| 1 |
On Montag 08 Dezember 2008, pat wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I've bought a new laptop with Core 2 Duo processor which is 64 bit. My |
| 5 |
> question is if applications (see below) compiled and running over 64 bits |
| 6 |
> are stable enough or if I should compile for 32 bits. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The applications are: |
| 9 |
> - Seamoneky/Firefox |
| 10 |
stable |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> - Java |
| 13 |
stable for years |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> - Flash |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
32bit+nspluginwrapper works very well - crash of flash does not kill browser, |
| 18 |
64bit is said to be a bit more stable |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> - Audacious |
| 21 |
don't know |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> - mplayer |
| 24 |
works as good as 32bit |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> - VirtualBox/VMware |
| 27 |
virtualbox works well |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> - Qemu |
| 30 |
qemu sucks - in any version independent from 'bitness'. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> - Kerberos/OpenLDAP/OpenSSH (for these I think they are stable) |
| 33 |
they are |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> - X.org/fluxbox |
| 36 |
really no problems there. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> - system suspending |
| 39 |
if there are problems they are independent from 32/64bit. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> I have 4GB RAM and I know better is to compile for 64 bits, but for me is |
| 43 |
> more important stability. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
if stability is more important for you, go 64bit. |
Archives