64 bit support

[sandyd]

how is 64 bit support on ubuntu these days?
still flakey?
does everything work like in 32 bit?

[sydbat]

I haven't had any problems...and have been running 64bit Hardy for well over a year.

I guess it depends on what you are doing/need to do, but there should be no problems.

[VastOne]

how is 64 bit support on ubuntu these days?
still flakey?
does everything work like in 32 bit?

All I have ever used is 64 bit (2+ years) on 45 machines and I have never seen anything that did not load or would not work.

Maybe I came late in the game but the 64 bit "flakey" question has always make me shake my head and wonder what it was ever about...:confused:

I love it, that better? ):P

[sandyd]

you came a bit late.... 64 bit support was horrific at the start.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Truth be told linux is better at 64bit then windows and OSX, its only those few applications here and there that make it seem otherwise.

[VastOne]

you came a bit late.... 64 bit support was horrific at the start.

I use it to run several hundred apps (all variances) in my business and it has yet to fail me.

Production is key for me...So it's solid run is really put to the test here.

[RabbitWho]

Is it worth switching? Apparently my laptop can handle it.

[FuturePilot]

Switched to 64bit when Jaunty was released. One of the best decisions I made. I haven't had any problems specific to 64bit. I love 64bit too.

The 64bit support has definitely improved over the past couple of releases and I would imagine it will continue to do so. 64bit is the future.

[beniwtv]

I have also been using 64 bit for over 2 years, and I have never had any trouble so far.

[jpeddicord]

64-bit all the way. You can't even use the Flash excuse anymore since Adobe released a 64-bit plugin. For any oddball 32-bit-only software there are the ia32-libs-* packages. Never had a problem. Switch. :)

[Firestem4]

I just got my desktop running recently with 64bit kubuntu Jaunty. I haven't had a single problem with it.

As a previous poster mentioned there were major issues with 64 bit support (famously Flash and audio) but thats now largely a defunct issue.

[pwnst*r]

Truth be told linux is better at 64bit then windows and OSX, its only those few applications here and there that make it seem otherwise.

i have no issues whatsoever in vista/win7/ubuntu for my needs

[sandyd]

welcome, 64 bit ubuntu to my dell studio 17 w/ core2duo

i got 6 GB of ram :D

[pwnst*r]

8GB here. i want MORE just because it's pretty cheap

[Artificial Intelligence]

64-bit all the way. You can't even use the Flash excuse anymore since Adobe released a 64-bit plugin. For any oddball 32-bit-only software there are the ia32-libs-* packages. Never had a problem. Switch. :)

+1

I switch nearly 2 years ago. Never regretted it. The good thing about Linux and Open Source is most (if not all) can be build for 64-bit. There's some 32-bit close source apps/games which requires the ia32-libs, but nowhere near as in Windows/OS X.

Both Java and Flash comes now with 64-bit support, so there should be no show-stopper anymore.

[VastOne]

welcome, 64 bit ubuntu to my dell studio 17 w/ core2duo

i got 6 GB of ram :D

Welcome...Now enjoy the max of your hardware!

[RabbitWho]

*has to stop reading this because the jealously is overwhelming*

[Skripka]

welcome, 64 bit ubuntu to my dell studio 17 w/ core2duo

i got 6 GB of ram :D

If only linux had some programs that were so poorly written that you would actually have a use for 6GB of RAM :)

[RiceMonster]

4 GB ram on my desktop, and still room for 4 more. I may buy more just for the hell of it. I've never even used 1/4th of it though. The highest I've ever seen my ram at is 700mb

But anyway, I use 64 bit Linux. Now that flash is available, I have no complaints. Some apps like emulators aren't available for 64bit, but there are libraries that allow you to run them. So overal, I'd say go ahead and make the switch.

[RabbitWho]

4 GB ram on my desktop, and still room for 4 more. I may buy more just for the hell of it. I've never even used 1/4th of it though. The highest I've ever seen my ram at is 700mb

But anyway, I use 64 bit Linux. Now that flash is available, I have no complaints. Some apps like emulators aren't available for 64bit, but there are libraries that allow you to run them. So overal, I'd say go ahead and make the switch.


I just made the jump from 192mb to 4 gb and i'm still amazed at things like.. okay right now i'm listening to music, copying music from a cd, talking to a friend on the internet and i have two firefox windows open both with a lot of tabs. I just.. wow. Oh and i've a desktop wallpaper! And firefox has ad ons on it! And I can move windows around without the computer making noises like it's in pain!
It's just amazing.
it makes me think that whole swap partition is something of a waste of space.

I chose 32 bit because i figured if it can handle 64 and i choose 32 then surely it will work even better. But after reading about 64 i see that's not the case. So when karmic .10 comes out I'll go with 64 :)

[Tibuda]

If only linux had some programs that were so poorly written that you would actually have a use for 6GB of RAM :)

That's why they develop Wine!

[Skripka]

That's why they develop Wine!

Can Wine address more than 3GB of memory at a time though, either in total or per program? I ask because I honestly do not know.

[bodhi.zazen]

Moved to recurring discussions.

[Tibuda]

Can Wine address more than 3GB of memory at a time though, either in total or per program? I ask because I honestly do not know.

I don't know. You said that Linux apps won't use all that RAM, so I suggested to try some Windows applications in Wine. I don't know how much RAM Wine can use.

[Regenweald]

I have been 64bit since the get go with Hardy. I'm not a developer so flash has never been of any consequence to me. More recently and importantly Chromium is now native 64bit. Honestly, i have never had any problems.

Is it just me, or is a 64bit build developer priority these days ?