Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

I think it is finally here.
Computers only support 64bit operating systems.

Just replaced a motherboard, with a new MSI PRO Z690-A DDR 4 motherboard.
This is an Intel LGA1700 CPU socket.
Using a i7-12700K CPU

It does say in the motherboard bios information, that it only supports 64bit operating systems. (it only lists Windows OS 64bit versions and says no support for Windows 32bit versions)

I have tried all the newer or newest 32bit versions of Puppy on it.
S15Pup32
Bionicpup32
Bookworm Pup32
Vanilla Dpup32
etc............

They all boot to the boot loader menu OK.
But stop booting, when it gets to point of boot process being done by the Puppy OS specific boot files.
Get message that shows the Puppy boot files starting but nothing happens.

I have tried booting with Bios set to full UEFI mode and CSM mode.

Has no affect to change this booting.

It boots with no problem using any of the new or newest 64bit Puppy versions.

Typing this from it booting BookwormPup64 10.0.3

So it seems this computer will only work using 64bit operating systems.
.

Evolution

I don't find it surprising that a new computer can't boot a 32 bit distro, the kernel is not getting any testing on 32 bit x86. Almost nobody runs a 32 bit kernel, certainly not developers.

The quality of 32 bit distros is deteriorating quickly, I have two old laptops limited to 32 bit distros which don't support any new distro. One doesn't boot at all, the other shows graphical glitches with Wayland and freezes. If your hardware can run a 64 bit distro, it won't be long until you'll have to choose between running a very old distro or finally going 64. The death of X.Org will send many computers to the junkyard and it's time to prepare.

dimkr wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:53 pm

The death of X.Org will send many computers to the junkyard and it's time to prepare.

The number of predictions about the death of X will soon approach the number of predictions about the collapse of the United States in the USSR

Red Hat is maintaining X.Org and probably won't continue to do that once RHEL 10 is out, or after 10. Cinnamon, Xfce and Budgie have migration plans away from X.Org, so distros won't package X.Org forever. Anyone who cares about X.Org and wants it to survive should step up to maintain it.

dimkr wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 8:21 pm

Cinnamon,
migration plans

I don't use Cinnamon just because there is no way to disable the part of the window manager responsible for compositing. And in the MATE of the same people, I can wedge Picom into Marco and avoid frame disruption. So they make decisions slowly and not always good

But I have my own plan. I plan to look at the collapse and say like at a hockey match: "well, I told you it wouldn't work, legless sloths"

I consider the whole process of what will boot a device mysterious, but I suppose the bigger question is "Why?".

I mean, are 64 computers jumping through major hoops for compatibility? Are they performance hindered for having it?

Heretofore 64 machines boot 32, & there is an era of 32 hybrid machines that boot 64, but generally old machines boot old 32 & newer machines have trouble going back as far as Tahr which is simple enough to grasp if not become accustomed to.

Of the Mainline, Only Fossa works in my new laptop.

So be it.

"Wayland" means "The year of Linux on the desktop", how nice that is. Revolution

@bigpup

What about booting a 32bit in VirtualBox?

wizard

I would try it and it would most likely work. (maybe)

But I really do want to use 64bit Puppy versions.

But up until getting this computer.

32bit or 64bit OS booting was never an issue, as long as the OS supported the hardware.

Intel CPU's have been able to use 32bit or 64bit software.
As far as I know they all still can.

But this new motherboard seems to have a Bios that is only accepting 64bit OS to run it.

The boot loader files are 32bit software and they boot OK to the boot menu.

But after turning over the boot process to the 32bit Puppy Linux software.
No will not run that OS, because it is 32bit.

Hi, I wanted to add it because it is related to the topic.

HPET Mode I just discovered this.

Such an option is available on Foxconn 82G33/G31.

BIOS:
> Power Management Setup
> HPET Mode
> It is possible to switch between 32-Bit mode and 64-bit mode.
> For save set F10 and reboot.

I don't know if new motherboards have this feature.

HPET Mode is not on this MSI PRO Z690-A DDR 4 motherboard.

It's bios documentation even warns, it will only work using 64bit OS's.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/17/systemd_253

Hi @bigpup, since it's relevant to the topic.

Does it mean that any distribution with systemd after 253-255 comes installed or has been deleted and evolved towards laptops where another distribution cannot be installed ?

Well, let's cut to the chase, shall we?

General 64-bit computing has been around for just over 20 years. AMD introduced the near-immortal Athlon64 on September 23rd, 2003:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64

(We don't count Intel's Itanium, because it was such a massive step away from what the industry was used to that it caught everybody on the hop.....including developers of operating systems.)

Up till last year, I had a 21-yr old 32-bit only Dell lappie. That's gone, and both my lappie AND my desktop rig will happily run modern 64-bit OSs, so in all honesty I have no real reason to keep 32-bit Puppies around any longer. I only do so, more for sentimental reasons than owt else; I certainly have no pressing need for them any more, and can't see me ever getting any machine in future that won't run 64-bit.

@pp4mnklinux hit it on the head above when he said "Evolution". That's it, in a nutshell.......and nobody's going to tell me that they really like being restricted to elderly software, hmm? Let's face it, any OS is but a platform for running software.....you cannot make the OS itself the "be-all and the end-all" of everything.

It's just the start....

You've had 2 decades notice, guys..!! Don't act all surprised, like it's just appeared out of left-centre field.....

Mike.

I don't need a 32bit OS as all my machines are 64bit, but I like to keep an eye on what's available for 32bit. There are a couple of reasons for this, firstly I might need 32bit one day. I know for a fact that a family member still has an old XP laptop from about 2005, which I know is 32bit, tucked away in a cupboard. Whether or not it will ever come into my possession I don't know, but it might. If it does I'm sure it'll be fun to play with if nothing else.

I also like to keep an eye on things just out of interest. Besides, we can't forget the rest of the world can we? In some countries there is definitely a need for 32bit OS's.

Just my thoughts, for what it's worth.

I still have Bionic32 on both my relatively old desktop and laptop (both work fine with the newest 64-bit systems as well). Main reason I have 32-bit is for my numerous 32-bit windows programs I run with a rather small and older WINE version. Sure there are 32-bit WINE compatibility solutions for 64-bit Puppys but that's overkill in my view and unnecessary overhead to get 32-bit applications working. Besides, Bionic32 is an excellent backup system since I can do everything with it compared to the new 64-bit Puppys.

Interesting article here over at Hackaday.com:-

https://hackaday.com/2023/05/21/intel-s ... -proposal/

AMD's original implementation of x86_64 built on top of the x86 architecture, adding a second set of 32-bit registers and the ability to auto-switch between one or two.....and running 64-bit in what was originally known as "long mode". The hardware would automatically swap into the correct run mode depending on what the OS told it was needed.

This also included the "'legacy' support" for 16- and 32-bit stuff. It booted initially into 16-bit, flipped instantly to 32-bit, then either stayed put OR swapped in the second set of registers as needed. Intel's proposal would remove all the legacy "cruft", and have the CPU boot directly into 64-bit.

The wrinkle here is that only OSs built after this implementation would be able to run on these new CPUs, because existing - and older - 64-bit OSs would NOT recognise the new protocols....

Talk about FORCING a "sea-change"!

Mike.