64 vs 32

the forum has a “hardware” forum for “Questions about drivers,
peripheral cabling, configuration”…and, a “64-bit” forum for
“Questions specific to 64-bit hardware (Software questions should be
posted in the appropriate software forums)”

those two were probably a really good idea in mid-last decade when
64s were first hitting the shelves and . . .

but, i’m not sure it still is a viable split…

it seems to me that the 32 v 64 issues are mostly being taken care of
more and more with each release…not all of course but, as i can
see the majority of 64 bit problems are actually software questions
rather than specifically on 64-bit hardware…

and, unfortunately a large percentage of new users flowing in ARE
installing on the shiny new 64 bit computer and having just moved from
a 32 bit machine, just latch on to the 64 forum without a clue if it
is a hardware or software problem (not that they are noticing it is
not a 64-bit software problem forum)…

well, take a look and decide (considering how they are being used) if
we really need a “64-bit (hardware)” and a “hardware” (without
mentioning it is not for 64-bit questions), and a single software
section for both 32 and 64?

just something to think about…i don’t care, i read and try to help
in most all of them…


DenverD
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
[NNTP posted w/openSUSE 11.3, KDE4.5.5, Thunderbird3.0.11, nVidia
173.14.28 3D, Athlon 64 3000+]
“It is far easier to read, understand and follow the instructions than
to undo the problems caused by not.” DD 23 Jan 11

On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:12:57 +0000, DenverD wrote:

> the forum has a “hardware” forum for “Questions about drivers,
> peripheral cabling, configuration”…and, a “64-bit” forum for
> “Questions specific to 64-bit hardware (Software questions should be
> posted in the appropriate software forums)”
>
> those two were probably a really good idea in mid-last decade when 64s
> were first hitting the shelves and . . .
>
> but, i’m not sure it still is a viable split…
>
> it seems to me that the 32 v 64 issues are mostly being taken care of
> more and more with each release…not all of course but, as i can see
> the majority of 64 bit problems are actually software questions rather
> than specifically on 64-bit hardware…
>
> and, unfortunately a large percentage of new users flowing in ARE
> installing on the shiny new 64 bit computer and having just moved from a
> 32 bit machine, just latch on to the 64 forum without a clue if it is a
> hardware or software problem (not that they are noticing it is not a
> 64-bit software problem forum)…
>
> well, take a look and decide (considering how they are being used) if we
> really need a “64-bit (hardware)” and a “hardware” (without mentioning
> it is not for 64-bit questions), and a single software section for both
> 32 and 64?
>
> just something to think about…i don’t care, i read and try to help in
> most all of them…

Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll take this up with the rest of staff and
see what we think - your suggestion makes sense to me since it does seem
many issues are not as specific as “is it a 32-bit or 64-bit
installation” these days.

Jim


Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

On 02. feb. 2011 19:12, DenverD wrote:

I’ve been thinking the exact same as you. I actually went to this
section to post your argument :slight_smile:

//Zaitor

+1.00000000

On 02/06/2011 10:45 AM, Zaitor wrote:
> I’ve been thinking the exact same as you. I actually went to this
> section to post your argument :slight_smile:

you know what they say about ‘great minds’!!


DenverD
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
[NNTP posted w/openSUSE 11.3, KDE4.5.5, Thunderbird3.0.11, nVidia
173.14.28 3D, Athlon 64 3000+]
“It is far easier to read, understand and follow the instructions than
to undo the problems caused by not.” DD 23 Jan 11

I agree, there is no benefit now in having a separate 64bit hardware sub-forum.

I also agree on this

Maybe tagging a according thread with “64bit” and using forums.openSUSE.org/tags/64bit.html may be an alternative for the separate 64bit (sub-)forum?

Regards
pistazienfresser

Here is a voice for the opposition…

Hardware issues are still dominated by 32-bit vs 64-bit firmware, and never the twain shall meet. Drivers for one platform will usually not work on the other platform, only some will work with a wrapper or kludge for the other platform. This is not unique to the Linux kernel, it’s a fundamental issue for all OS. Solutions for one platform don’t usually apply to the other platform as well.

At the very least, keeping 32-bit and 64-bit hardware forums separate should force Forum Users to consider the importance to specify which platform they’re using.

If you’re arguing for a different emphasis on what might be “default” then I agree the time will come but until a majority of software people use runs on 64-bit I wouldn’t recommend the change… yet. Today, IMO the default recommendation for all Users still has to be 32-bit to avoid numerous issues and incompatibilities later. Only the people who understand the consequences and haveforesight should be installing 64-bit for now.

IMO,
Tony

Like what consequences exactly? As DenverD stated, these issues nowadays can be counted by using one hand, if at all - I don’t think they justify an extra subforum. Plus, as DenverD wrote as well, the title of this subforum (“Questions specific to 64-bit hardware”) is misleading, as it suggests that there are problems because of the usage of 64bit hardware (as opposed to 32bit hardware). I agree that 64bit systems are still the minority (although I tend to assume it’s almost 50/50 these days), but at least 90% of current home desktop PCs contain 64bit cpus.

I agree with DenverDs idea.

On 02/15/2011 01:36 AM, tsu2 wrote:
>
> Here is a voice for the opposition…

so instead of putting all hardware only issues in one forum (named
“Hardware”), you prefer to rename the forums to have “32-bit Hardware”
and “64-bit Hardware” [replacing our current “Hardware” and “64-bit”],
and keeping all software issues (32/64) consolidated in the existing
fora for applications, install-boot-login, multimedia, games,
wiresless etc etc…correct?

and, what about “128-bit Hardware”??


DenverD
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
[NNTP posted w/openSUSE 11.3, KDE4.5.5, Thunderbird3.0.11, nVidia
173.14.28 3D, Athlon 64 3000+]
“It is far easier to read, understand and follow the instructions than
to undo the problems caused by not.” DD 23 Jan 11

Possibly the only oppostion. :slight_smile:

Hardware issues are still dominated by 32-bit vs 64-bit firmware.

Any stats to prove that for posted openSUSE issues?

Drivers for one platform will usually not work on the other platform, only some will work with a wrapper or kludge for the other platform. This is not unique to the Linux kernel, it’s a fundamental issue for all OS. Solutions for one platform don’t usually apply to the other platform as well.

But this is a non-issue in this context as it pre-judges the outcome. Differentiating between 64 and 32 bit (or not) is part of the solution process, even though a problem statement may sometimes include the data.

keeping 32-bit and 64-bit hardware forums separate should force Forum Users to consider the importance to specify which platform they’re using.

It should, but real life ain’t like that. :wink:

If you’re arguing for a different emphasis on what might be “default” then I agree the time will come but until a majority of software people use runs on 64-bit I wouldn’t recommend the change… yet. Today, IMO the default recommendation for all Users still has to be 32-bit to avoid numerous issues and incompatibilities later. Only the people who understand the consequences and haveforesight should be installing 64-bit for now.

There is no default. Users make the choice when they obtain a copy of openSUSE. You can run i586 oS on 32/64bit hardware and x86_64 on 64bit hardware. Whatever your opinion, the user makes the choice, so we shouldn’t jump to conclusions by creating even more categories to choose from at the problem reporting stage. When selectig the buckets are you differentiating the hardware or the OS? Different distros may do that differently. Who benefits?

There is, in my opinion, an even better reason for this. The simpler the forum is the less likely people are to post in the wrong place, I know my first few posts we’re.

The Following snips from the prior post…

I doubt anyone, much less I have done any kind of statistical analysis attempting to classify different kinds of hardware issues posted in the Forums although that could be interesting at the least and more than interesting to someone (but who exactly?)

But I think that the introduction of x64 has been at least as painful as the introduction of 32-bit (for those who can remember). Just like then, despite attempts to ease the transition there has been extreme resistance from peripherals manufacturers and software to expire old codebases and invest in new technology, resulting in incompatibilities with the newer technology (x64 today).

Yes, if you browse the Hardware and Wireless Forums, you’ll see plenty of instances where x64 firmware doesn’t yet exist for new products. I myself bought a fourth generation wireless card without checking specs and discovered afterwards for the first time in the series there isn’t a working Linux driver which is an issue similar to the x64 firmware issue (the chipset manufacturer just doesn’t care that much about smaller markets).

This isn’t pre-judging, it’s categorizing and hopefully emphasizing to the Forum User the importance of considering whether they’re installed with a 32-bit or 64-bit OS.

In other words, especially for the newbies it’s important to present them with solutions which should work and limiting the solutions that wouldn’t… and IMO keeping x64 hardware solutions separate is helpful because the firmware is very different.

That’s fair. But, IMO to improve the User experience the User should be guided at least to the point understanding when he can experience the benefits of x64 and whether the wireless, printers, scanners and other devices he owns or will purchase will work with his system. The bottom line is to avoid User frustration and a possible re-install.

IMO,
Tony

On 02/15/2011 05:36 PM, tsu2 wrote:

> This isn’t pre-judging, it’s categorizing and hopefully emphasizing to
> the Forum User the importance of considering whether they’re installed
> with a 32-bit or 64-bit OS.

not if they use YaST or zypper because neither of those require the
user to know which than have either as a system or installed software…

now, if the user is advanced enough to wanna go out and download rpms
or source code s/he better be smart enough already know which of these
to fetch

586.rpm
64.rpm

or, there will be trouble no which s/he fetches…

hmmmmm, i wonder if rpm would install a 64 on a 32 system…i guess it
would first throw up a million dependency problems and even those not
able to keep in mind which they should have downloaded would get the
hint that something was wrong LONG before a reinstall were required…

> The bottom line is to avoid User frustration and a possible re-install.

and you believe having a hardware-64 and hardware-32 will help?
even if all software questions go to non-segregated fora?

and don’t forget, this 64 bit thing is not new around here…i ran
SuSE on 64 in 2005…64 only seems to be a new thing to those with
more experience in other systems…(and i ran pure 32 in '94, on a
different, non-MS system)…and, i expect to run 128 on non-Redmond
years before they ship that lame mule.


DenverD
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD
[NNTP posted w/openSUSE 11.3, KDE4.5.5, Thunderbird3.0.11, nVidia
173.14.28 3D, Athlon 64 3000+]
“It is far easier to read, understand and follow the instructions than
to undo the problems caused by not.” DD 23 Jan 11

If you intend to differentiate by whether hardware is only 32-bit capable or x64 which is both 32-bit and 64-bit capable, then I might agree with you but in my experience (admittedly could be less than others) that’s not the typical way people approach 32-bit/64-bit architectural issues.

I interpreted the differentiation differently, whether a 32-bit or 64-bit OS was installed on hardware regardless what the hardware capability is… And when either 32-bit or 64-bit OS is installed on hardware, the machine will function differently.

In other words, if you have a 32-bit OS installed, then you will be dealing with 32-bit hardware issues, and that is regardless whether the hardware is “64-bit capable” or not. And, if you have a 64-bit OS installed, it means that you’re dealing with 64-bit hardware issues.

Run this interpretation by a few people, if they disagree with me then of course I won’t continue to defend this position.

IMO,
Tony

IMO the only hardware that has a bit width that matters is the CPU. Any issues with peripherals are due to software, and mostly due to proprietary drivers. So a forum labelled 64-bit hardware is a bit of a misnomer and an anachronism. At the very least the forum should be retitled 64-bit issues.

I agree, but approaching the home page, the user just sees an unqualified “64-bit” option (along with all the others at the same level e.g Hardware). 64-bit is only identified as hardware on 64-bit forum page and only if they read the small print. Thus many posters with 64-bit hardware end up in Hardware forum anyway.

Yes, I’d agree with that too. I would support just removing the 64-bit forum and getting posters to go to software or hardware and then we dig out what the problem really is.

So it’s now about the OS not the hardware/firmware. While the problem now facing the user with a system problem is: (Hardware v. Software?) * (32bit v. 64bit?). Result is: user can’t decide and posts in Install/Boot or Laptop or …

So it’s the solutions you want to separate, even though the guy/gal choosing the posting category doesn’t know about the solution and probably isn’t that sure of where the problem lies. The Mods could be in for a lot of post shunting back at the sorting office. :smiley: