OUCH!

[Nefaro]

Bottom line is that if this came with 64 bit, it's likely that it's becoming common. Or maybe we got lucky.

It's the norm, for awhile now.  All the latest machines use 64-bit although you can still likely get 32-bit if absolutely necessary.  I had seen 32-bit WinVista still being regularly sold up until about three or four years ago but I don't think they're very common anymore.

[jomni]

Yeah almost all hardware is 64 bit.
You still get a couple of low cost 32 bit stuff in the product lines of computer companies but that's a minority already.

Self-builders should take note of this trend so that they won't get left behind.

[Nefaro]

I was talking about OS still being sold from mass retail distribs up until a couple-three years ago.

The hardware being sold has supported 64-bit for a lot longer than that.   When I built a system for myself in 2006-7, nearly all of the new processors were 64-bit compatible with only a handful of the old 32-bit-only ones sitting at clearance prices.  So it's been over five years since the processor companies switched in full force.

[Staggerwing]

The 2004 Dell that I've been testing Linux on has a mobo that supports 64bit. With a processor upgrade (used, $12) from 3.0 to 3.4 I have CPU support for it as well. That CPU was actually an option for my rig back then. Only issue I have is that the BIOS sees my 4gigs of ram but the 64bit Linux still only sees 3.

[Huw the Poo]

That's odd; Linux has supported 64-bit even longer than Windows has.  You must have some kind of configuration error.  Which distro is it, and are you positive it's the 64-bit version?

[Staggerwing]

I'm still playing around with Ubuntu (12.04). It seems to play nicely with Steam and actually runs Red Orchestra better than Windows did (after reinstalling w/out dual boot). The distro is definitely the 64bit version. I installed it off a disk that wouldn't originally boot due to lack of 64bit hardware support until I swapped out the cpu from a 3.00gig pentium to a 64bit-friendly 3.40gig.

[Huw the Poo]

It seems to play nicely with Steam and actually runs Red Orchestra better than Windows did (after reinstalling w/out dual boot).

I'm not surprised; Linux doesn't hog as many system resources as Windows, and it's always been my experience that games running natively in Linux run at least as well as, but usually better than, their Windows versions. 8)

The distro is definitely the 64bit version. I installed it off a disk that wouldn't originally boot due to lack of 64bit hardware support until I swapped out the cpu from a 3.00gig pentium to a 64bit-friendly 3.40gig.

This is a mystery to me, and beyond my ability to solve I'm afraid.  However, I dug out these three links which all seem to suggest there may be some hardware compatibility issue.  I don't know if it can be fixed or not.  Sorry, I wish I could be more help.

[Staggerwing]

No problem Huw. I appreciate the input. This is just an old GX280 that I'm using to play around with. It's pretty long in the tooth by now. If When I get serious about a Linux box I'm going to build it m'self from reasonably up to date components. I just wish that dual boot wasn't as messed up as it is due to the HD formatting needed for Windows. Then I could have the best of both.

[Huw the Poo]

I just wish that dual boot wasn't as messed up as it is due to the HD formatting needed for Windows. Then I could have the best of both.

Perhaps I can help here - what exactly do you mean?

[Staggerwing]

If my HD is formatted for Windows (NTFS) as well as Linux then it requires mount.ntfs to access the hd which pegs my cpu to the wall every time there is a disk read/write. I've no idea if that would be an issue with an i5 or i7 cpu but it is a showstopper on an older rig like my present 'hobby' box.

[Huw the Poo]

Really?  Weird - but a quick spot of searching throws up this possible explanation, which is annoying but at least not incurable.  I'll have a closer look later but I'm heading into town now.

I haven't run into anything like this because I never have different filesystems on the same disk.  One disk is exclusively NTFS, the other EXT2/3/4.

[Staggerwing]

I haven't considered booting from separate drives. How do you set that up? Thanks again for the input.

[Huw the Poo]

I haven't considered booting from separate drives. How do you set that up? Thanks again for the input.

I just do everything from whatever Linux install medium I'm using, i.e. either an optical disc or (more likely) a USB disk.  Boot it up, launch the installer, and then I always choose to edit the partition layout by hand.

Windows is already installed on one disk (sda), so I tell the installer to leave that alone.  Then I tell it to format the other disk (sdb), and set up partitions as follows:

1st partition - ext2 - mount as /
2nd partition - swap
3rd partition - ext4 - mount as /home

Easy.  Actually my setup is a little more complex than that, but this example works perfectly.  Then I just tell the installer to put Grub into /dev/sdb (not /dev/sdb1).  Most modern distros will check for other operating systems first, as a precaution.  For example, it might say "also detected Windows 7".  Then it should ask whether everything you were expecting is there, then you can let it do its thing.

Edit: The above is only what I'd do first time.  Next time I want to install a different distro, I only tell it to format the 1st partition of sdb.  That way my /home is preserved and I don't have to laboriously copy over my data from backup any time I switch distros.

[Staggerwing]

I'll try that when I finally do a build. This old Dell I'm messing around with is a minitower (much like the Small Form Factor, only slightly bigger) so it doesn't have room for a second drive unless I take out the DVD drive and mickey-mouse that slot to hold another hdd.