> (Java, Flash, etc. are not yet released in 64-bit compatible > versions). This requires some workaround but is generally manageable; > software that is not available in 64-bit versions will usually just be > run in 32-bit compatibility mode.
This is true. Flash is not yet released in 64-bit compatible versions. The following URL shows the workaround. http://www.fsckin.com/2007/09/20/how-to-install-adobe-flash-player-for-amd64-64-bit-on-debian-etch/ The nspluginwrapper helped me to run 32-bit flash player in a 64-bit browser. I found a problem with this method. All 64-bit browsers in my system are running flash as a non-root user. But some of them(iceape, epiphany, konqueror) are not running flash as a root. Iceweasel is running flash as the user root. Apart from this, I'm very much satisfied with amd processor. Compared to Intel it is cheaper and faster. - Jos Collin On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Soules <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AMD is a chip manufacturer. They started out (~20 years ago) as a > "second source" for 286 processors, but since then they have been > producing independently-designed chips within the x86 architecture > (i.e. they use the same instruction set). > > (See: > AMD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD > x86 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMDx86> architecture: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_architecture) > > So 1: > AMD is a separate chip manufacturer. They are now a competitor, not a > second source. > > > 2. Is there any significant architectural differences between the > products > > manufactured by these two companies??? > Yes. I'm not an expert on what those differences are, but they are > different chips with different hardware details. > It looks like there are differences in the CPU pipeline length (or > used to be), in the way some instructions are implemented, in number > of cores available, etc. You can find out more by googling > "difference between amd and intel architecture" or some such, a lot of > the links I was finding are outdated though. Keep in mind both > companies are releasing new chips every few months; something that was > true in mid-2007 will not necessarily be true any more, etc. > > > 3. I ask the above question because it seems that the chips produced by > one > > seem not be be plug in capable with the chips produced by the other > That is correct; they are not plug-in compatible. One needs an Intel > motherboard for Intel processors and an AMD mobo for AMD processors. > > > 4. I also ask the above question because over the last 2 years software > > problems "seem" to occur around one but not the other??? > I haven't heard anything about this; I'm sure that one chip has > different problems from another, but all have problems. > > > 5. Also, there is a non-i386 computer containing the AMD acronymn listed > > with ARM and a dozen other non i386 computers listed by Debian. > Not sure what you're referring to. http://www.debian.org/ports/ lists > the different chip architectures supported by Debian. AMD64 (iirc, > someone will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong) is separate because > AMD chips had real 64-bit support before the Intel ones. > i386 traditionally refers to the 32-bit x86 instruction set. > > > 6. How is it that (for example) the Debian i386 AMD chip (some but not > all) > > are more condusive to the Debian kernel for certain kinds of operations > but > > not so with the Intel chip? > Not sure what you're referring to. This is a pretty vague statement. > > What version of Debian were you planning to run? You should find both > AMD and Intel chips supported perfectly well by the stable branch of > Debian. > The vendors are correct that you must use AMD motherboards with AMD > processors, Intel motherboards with Intel processors; but either one > should be capable of doing what the other does (within 32-bit > applications). AMD implements the i386 instruction set; everything > should work fine there. There will be some differences in 64-bit > land, because not everyone supports 64-bit software at this point > (Java, Flash, etc. are not yet released in 64-bit compatible > versions). This requires some workaround but is generally manageable; > software that is not available in 64-bit versions will usually just be > run in 32-bit compatibility mode. (Modern kernels are available for > both 64-bit and 32-bit architectures, of course; they just won't be > identical, because one is built with 64-bit support, one is not). > > This isn't a processor-specific mailing list, so while I'm sure people > here will be able to answer your questions, they won't necessarily be > the best answers. It might be helpful if you could specify why you're > asking, or what exactly you're trying to do. > > Best, > Jeff Soules > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ted Hilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can someone enlighten me regarding my confusion with the term AMD. > > > > 1, I know that the term AMD (American Micro Devices) is supposed to be a > > 'second source' for Intel 32bit and 64bit microprocessors. But it seems > > based on what I have read on this relationship between AMD and Intel that > > there is controversy, legal actions, competition, and architectural > > differences regarding the manufacture and selling of these > microprocessors. > > So this suggests to me that AMD is not really a 'second source' (a > > licensed second manufacturing and selling source supplier of identical > > products as designed and manufactured by another company). > > > > 2. Is there any significant architectural differences between the > products > > manufactured by these two companies??? > > > > 3. I ask the above question because it seems that the chips produced by > one > > seem not be be plug in capable with the chips produced by the other -- it > > seems that the boards produced for one are different that the CPU boards > > produced for the other??? > > > > 4. I also ask the above question because over the last 2 years software > > problems "seem" to occur around one but not the other??? > > > > 5. Also, there is a non-i386 computer containing the AMD acronymn listed > > with ARM and a dozen other non i386 computers listed by Debian. I > > understand this second listing of non i386 machines (one example being > the > > Motorola 68xxx) but am confused about the AMD non i386 machines place in > > this listing. > > > > 6. How is it that (for example) the Debian i386 AMD chip (some but not > all) > > are more condusive to the Debian kernel for certain kinds of operations > but > > not so with the Intel chip??? I base this on Debian documentation where > the > > Intel chip is not even mentioned. > > Bottom line, over the past 2 years I have been struggling with the idea > of > > using the correct (if there is such a thing) microprocessor board/chip > > combination appropriate for certain operations but not at the exclusion > of > > all other possible operations. Maybe I have just confused myself and > every > > Intel board/chip combination is replaceable with every AMD board/chip > > combination. But this is not what vendors have been telling me. They > are > > telling me that on MS Windows OS (eg: XP) I can use either the AMD > > board/chip combination or the Intel board/chip combination but the boards > > and chips are not mutually compatible - AMD chips must go into AMD boards > > and Intel chips must go into Intel boards. Also, I am being told that > some > > Debian software will operate on some AMD board/chip combinations but not > > others and that this has something to do with the specific kernel where > one > > Debian kernel version will not run the same (for certain operations) as > > another version. > > > > So, I am confused and frustrated. I used to think that Debian kernels > would > > all run without exception on either AMD or Intel board/chip combinations > and > > the odd quirk in a kernel version would be resolved with a newer version. > I > > was also told that the chip sets (including the MP chip(s) had different > > parameters and an Intel chip set combination was not compatible with an > AMD > > chip set combination thus making the boards non compatible with one > another. > > In fact, I am told, it is these other chips (including and working with > the > > MP chip) that account for many differences some of which play havoc with > > certain Linux kernels. I am also told that indiscriminate use of a > Debian > > kernel may bring problems that occur on an Intel system or vice-versa > for a > > AMD system. > > > > Is there a CHART that matches Debian kernels to tested and acceptable AMD > > and Intel board/chip set matches while indicating limitations, > constraints, > > and possible special operations for both??? > > > > I have seen this same question (in a variety of forms) asked on this > forum > > as well as others but I haven't seen a complete answer. > > > > Thanks in advance, for any comments, technical references, etc. == Ted > Hilts > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
