I just upgraded from 11.2 to 11.3 (mainly because something happened in 11.2 and the bootup thereafter ended with me at the command line, which I couldn’t fix. Since going to 11.3 full install (an upgrade didn’t work), I’m back to the desktop, now. However, I’ve a concern with what otherwise looks like an improved, somewhat speedier OS and more solid KDE 4.4:
The installation (from a full DVD version, downloaded) advised that either 64-bit OS or 32-bit version would be installed automatically based on the installer’s probe of my CPU. Well, my system carries a 64-bit AMD Athlon X2 4850e dual core processor. Yet, if I’m reading OpenSUSE’s system info correctly, I was given the 32-bit OS. Here’s the data from My Computer:
Am I right that this is the 32-bit version? It still seems snappier than the 11.2 install, which indeed ran on this same machine only with a 32-bit CPU. When I did a complete install of 11.3 to the old hard drives, it discovered my old Linux partitions and surprisingly did not destroy my personal data or settings. Also, I’m running OpenSUSE on the same PC with Windows Vista, via a Grub loader. Perhaps that’s an issue, too.
Many problems with an upgrade or a new install are due to video card/drivers. You may have only needed to reinstall the drivers you had for 11.2 to get into the GUI
On 2010-08-28 17:36, ken yap wrote:
>
> If you do an upgrade, the installer will not change the architecture. To
> change the architecture you have to do a fresh install.
No, that is not so. You can upgrade changing the architecture at the same time - although it is not
a supported procedure, some people have done so and reported success.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Elessar))
Since going to 11.3 full install (an upgrade didn’t work), I’m back to the desktop, now.
Am I right that this is the 32-bit version? It still seems snappier than the 11.2 install, which indeed ran on this same machine only with a 32-bit CPU. When I did a complete install of 11.3 to the old hard drives, it discovered my old Linux partitions and surprisingly did not destroy my personal data or settings. Also, I’m running OpenSUSE on the same PC with Windows Vista, via a Grub loader. Perhaps that’s an issue, too.
A 32 bit OS can run perfectly well on x86-64 bit hardware, one of the few drawbacks for a normal home desktop is that a 32bit OS can not access as much RAM as the 64bit version.
It appearers that you are happy with it, if so I would not change it.
Anything is possible if you are willing to hack it enough, but whether it’s wise is another question. That’s the level at which I targetted the answer.
>
> A 32 bit OS can run perfectly well on x86-64 bit hardware, one of the
> few drawbacks for a normal home desktop is that a 32bit OS can not
> access as much RAM as the 64bit version.
>
Most newer 32 bit systems are compatible with pae (36 bit adresses) and I
know not many home users running 32 bit machines with more than 64 GB RAM.
>
> It appearers that you are happy with it, if so I would not change it.
I second that, do not fix something that works good.
–
openSUSE 11.2 64 bit | Intel Core2 Quad Q8300@2.50GHz | Gnome 2.28 | GeForce
9600 GT | 4GB Ram
openSUSE 11.3 64 bit | Intel Core2 Duo T9300@2.50GHz | Gnome 2.30 | Quadro
FX 3600M | 4GB Ram
Most newer 32 bit systems are compatible with pae (36 bit adresses) and I
know not many home users running 32 bit machines with more than 64 GB RAM.
Well, I was actually thinking more along the lines of the conventional 4GB limit, if for example I had 8GB of RAM, I would be inclined to go 64 bit rather than 32 bit pae.
But that is just my choice. And in the OPs case he seems happy with the performance he is getting.
>
> Well, I was actually thinking more along the lines of the conventional
> 4GB limit, if for example I had 8GB of RAM, I would be inclined to go 64
> bit rather than 32 bit pae.
> But that is just my choice. And in the OPs case he seems happy with the
> performance he is getting.
>
My comment was not meant as a general advice to prefer 32 bit pae (you see I
run 64 bit though I have only 4GB of RAM), why - simply because I have 64
bit cpu’s and there is a 64 bit linux available
I do not really think that for normal usage as a desktop one of us mere
mortals will even notice a difference in using the 32 or 64 bit versions (I
cannot prove that, it is just an opinion).
–
openSUSE 11.2 64 bit | Intel Core2 Quad Q8300@2.50GHz | Gnome 2.28 | GeForce
9600 GT | 4GB Ram
openSUSE 11.3 64 bit | Intel Core2 Duo T9300@2.50GHz | Gnome 2.30 | Quadro
FX 3600M | 4GB Ram
I do not really think that for normal usage as a desktop one of us mere
mortals will even notice a difference in using the 32 or 64 bit versions (I
cannot prove that, it is just an opinion).
On 2010-08-29 09:36, ken yap wrote:
>
> Carlos E. R. Wrote:
>> On 2010-08-28 17:36, ken yap wrote:
>>>
>>> If you do an upgrade, the installer will not change the architecture.
>>> To change the architecture you have to do a fresh install.
>>
>> No, that is not so. You can upgrade changing the architecture at the
>> same time - although it is not
>> a supported procedure, some people have done so and reported success.
>
> Anything is possible if you are willing to hack it enough, but whether
> it’s wise is another question. That’s the level at which I targetted the
> answer.
No hacking necesary. Just boot the 64 bit DVD and it will offer it straight away, with a warning.
In fact, if you boot with the BiArch DVD (the paid for one), which contains both 32 and 64 bit
versions, it will boot by default in 64 bit mode if you have a 64 bit CPU, and thus, if you then
choose upgrade it will warn that you are changing the Arch, but it will do it if you say go ahead.
Ie, default upgrade is to “upgrade” the Arch, too. Curious, as it is not supported.
If you want to keep to the 32 bit version you have to say so during boot, there is an option in the
install boot menu for that.
On 2010-08-30 03:36, ken yap wrote:
>
> I’d still be wary of it. You probably get only one shot at it and if you
> mess it up you will have to do a reinstall anyway.
Reinstall? No, I always do a backup before. So, I restore.
And yes, of course I’m very wary of that procedure, it is not supported, and I still haven’t done
it. I want to do it soon, after I finish setting up another computer as backup. I’m very curious to
see how it works.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Elessar))
On 2010-08-30 04:36, ken yap wrote:
>
> Carlos E. R.;2214226 Wrote:
>>
>> Reinstall? No, I always do a backup before. So, I restore.
>
> Nah, I wasn’t referring to your personal files. I’m only interested in
> system files.
Me too. I do a full backup before an upgrade or reinstall. In fact, I may keep out the data disks,
as they are big, and the interesting stuff should already be backed up.
> Obviously the devs are providing a migration path to 64-bit. It should
> be interesting.
It is interesting.
But read the posts in the links I gave, specially those of the factory list, where some devs answer.
There is one “interesting” post where the project manager or whatever his tittle is cuts it short
saying that this procedure “is not supported” and any reports in bugzilla will be wontfixed or
ignored (from memory, I haven’t read the post since it was written). Cold shower.
The procedure is indeed interesting. Devs have obviously developed it, and given it some thought
time. But… hopes destroyed.
Several people said they had done it successfully. I do intend to try, now that I have some
unexpected free time.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Elessar))
I had my opensuse broken and needed new reinstall.
I was tempted to install 32 bit after using 64bit opensuse 11.3. I think i did
a mistake. Not sure whom and what to blame but 32 bit system graphics preformance
got worse probaly even too anoying. I’m looking forward changing back to 64bits.
Never repair a something that works… But worth to try :D.
