5 years later - why is this not the 32 bit users section?

[Garyu]

The first posts about using 64-bit ubuntu that I can find on this forum are from october 2004. I switched to 64-bit OS myself not too long after that, and have been running nothing but 64-bit ever since both on linux and windows. Sure, there has been a few issues on the linux side with some apps not installing "out-of-the-box". But it has always been possible to make things work.

So here we are 5 years (!) later, and 64-bit is still something that people say "I might try it out". Why is that? I would say one of the reasons is this very forum section. The 64-bit version is not treated as the standard installation, so people go with the 32-bit version since they feel it is recommended. Well, IMO, that is a stupid recommendation.

When I started looking at linux, I was faced with a lot of threads telling me "linux is harder to get into than windows, but it is worth it". Now when linux is a lot easier to use and get used to, I am faced with "64-bit is harder to get into than 32-bit so it is NOT worth it". What?

I demand this section be renamed to "x86 32-bit Users" and all the other categories be standardized to 64-bit. Actually, I would have named it "legacy ubuntu", since it involves old technology. One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

[prshah]

faced with "64-bit is harder to get into than 32-bit so it is NOT worth it".

I was/am one of the people who keep making this recommendation; your post and similar recent posts make me think I am probably wrong.

I have a 64-bit capable (Core2Duo, capable motherboard, etc) system, but have been using 32bit for the past three years and have never even moved beyond the 64bit live CD.

Now, apparently, it's better in every way...

food for thought.

[nzadLithium]

I've been using 64bit since I started using linux :D (I thought that was about a year and a half ago but I realised that I've been through 5 ubuntu releases and I think they come out 6monthly? Does that mean i've been using for 2 and a half years? Wow!!!!!!!!!!).

My friends brother had 32bit ubuntu on his pc, and I was like woah that looks cool can i borrow it?, he was like sure, I took the case and it turns out it had both 64bit and 32bit versions of edgy in it :D I figured my pc's 64bit, why not? :D

I kinda agree with what Garyu said, 64bit works just as well as 32bit plus you can have more memory :D I'm not sure if I would ask this section to be removed but it would be good to see an x86 32-bit users section as well so 64bit doesn't look like the big scary monster from under your bed :D

Although I think theres a bigger issue than this threads name :p
If you have a look at ubuntu's download page, you'll notice that you see the options of LTS and the current version. Then you have download location and the download button. Most people wouldn't notice the little checkbox hidden down below the bottom of the screen that says "Only change these if you know you need different values."
Guess what that checkbox is for? selecting 64bit or 32bit! 32bit is default and most poeple wouldn't even notice that option was there!

[coolbrook]

Perhaps there are more people limited to 32-bit than you think. I like that Linux supports and secures older machines that run/ran Win9x. The reality is that the majority of users don't need the latest hardware. Gaming is my only limitation. I'm not a gamer.

[sanderj]

My AMD64 X2 desktop with 4GB RAM is on 64-bit Ubuntu since I bought the machine (summer 2007).

I have two machines on 32-bit Ubuntu because ... the hardware is 32-bit:
- a brand-new (!) Atom N270 Netbook: 32-bit
- a 3 year old Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) laptop: 32-bit too

So: 32-bit Ubuntu is still relevant as for a lot of existing and even new hardware (netbooks) it's the only option.

[Jouke74]

The main reason is of course that the 32 bits system runs fine on 64 bit computers. There is absolutely no need to switch to 64 bit, except if you have more than 4 GB of internal memory which you fully want to use. In speed there is little advantage unless you have dedicated number crunching applications.

Generally, the majority of people use their PC for internet, email, chats working out stuff in office applications. For this you don't need 64 bits. Gamers are on the edge of requiring 64 bit to allocate their gaming needs, however, those are (currently) most likely running a windows 64 bit operating system (linux has 1.5% market share?).

Wait still for two years and when 4-8 GB of internal memory is common and maybe needed in PC's, then the big user-shift to 64 bit will come. Until then I think the forum will keep having a 64 bit section.

[Npl]

if it hadnt been for some games I would still edge along on my old AthlonXP System (which I inherited to my family and is in use everyday). There still are a ton of 32bit systems in use, and unless you game or run a server even 8 year old Processors are enough for your everyday work - heck most netbooks that are sold today barely are faster than them.

[nzadLithium]

All of those reasons are very compelling not to switch if you already have your system setup.

But what if its not, what if I am setting up a new system or am deciding to try linux for the first time? Can someone provide a reason as to why I would specifically want a 32bit operating system on my computer when my system is capable of 64bit? Big number crunching goes faster, and I have yet to find something I can do on 32bit that I can't on 64.

[Garyu]

So: 32-bit Ubuntu is still relevant as for a lot of existing and even new hardware (netbooks) it's the only option.

I am not asking the developers to stop working on 32-bit linux.

I am asking the forum staff to acknowledge that 64-bit is the new standard.

Just now, I checked the major online computer dealer in Sweden. They have one 32-bit CPU for sale: Pentium dual core. All of their other processors they have for sale are 64-bit (or in some cases maybe it would be better to say 64-bit enabled or something, but still). So basically, anyone buying a new computer will have a 64-bit architechture. They are unable to choose anything else.

With laptops, the situation may be different. But like I said, I'm not saying that 32-bit linux should be discontinued. I'm just saying that there is no reason to treat 32-bit as the standard architechture.

[ussndmac]

Until I can install 64bit and it be as stable as the 32bit install, 32bit IS the standard for me.

Granted, I use the RT kernel so YMMV.

:)

[aysiu]

Moved from the 64-bit support subforum to Forum Feedback and Help.

[NoaHall]

64 bit is stable. More so than 32 bit at times.

[lisati]

My old desktop, if I had the patience to get a Linux distro working on it well enough for me to use, would have to be 32-bit.

[theZoid]

The main reason is of course that the 32 bits system runs fine on 64 bit computers. There is absolutely no need to switch to 64 bit, except if you have more than 4 GB of internal memory which you fully want to use. snip.

even with ram, you can use up to 64gb with 32bit Ubuntu utilizing PAE. but, yeah, I use only 64 bit exclusively unless I get a netbook.

IMO we've past the point of deciding which one to use barring hardware.

[cariboo907]

There are a lot of users that are resistant to change, personally I don't understand it. If you've got the hardware, use the software.

[luvr]

I upgraded to 64-bit capable hardware fairly recently, but I'm still using 32-bit software. As long as the 32-bit software keeps running fine and I don't need more RAM than it can address, I don't feel any immediate need to migrate to 64-bit computing. That's not to say that I definitely won't--just that it's a low-priority option to me. My 64-bit computing experience is limited to running from LiveCD.

With Slackware providing an officially supported 64-bit version these days, I may be yet another small step closer to giving 64-bit computing a serious try--but it remains a pretty low priority.

[aesis05401]

I'm not entirely sure about this: for typical user-land programs the change to 64 bit is just widening the registers for a couple of data types. So as long as you write a program to deal with 32bit values (four octets) you can easily recompile for 64 bit architecture (eight octets) - that extra space will just be irrelevant. I don't think a compiler could do the same in reverse for a program that depends on having 64bit values.

I've never actually migrated a code base or even hand rolled a 64 bit nix, so who knows :P

[bodhi.zazen]

The first posts about using 64-bit ubuntu that I can find on this forum are from october 2004. I switched to 64-bit OS myself not too long after that, and have been running nothing but 64-bit ever since both on linux and windows. Sure, there has been a few issues on the linux side with some apps not installing "out-of-the-box". But it has always been possible to make things work.

So here we are 5 years (!) later, and 64-bit is still something that people say "I might try it out". Why is that? I would say one of the reasons is this very forum section. The 64-bit version is not treated as the standard installation, so people go with the 32-bit version since they feel it is recommended. Well, IMO, that is a stupid recommendation.

When I started looking at linux, I was faced with a lot of threads telling me "linux is harder to get into than windows, but it is worth it". Now when linux is a lot easier to use and get used to, I am faced with "64-bit is harder to get into than 32-bit so it is NOT worth it". What?

I demand this section be renamed to "x86 32-bit Users" and all the other categories be standardized to 64-bit. Actually, I would have named it "legacy ubuntu", since it involves old technology. One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

32 bit machines are not obsolete , in fact most netbooks are 32 bit.

32 bit OS also have advantages, they are smaller and use less ram. Many Virtualization entheausiasts advise 32 bit over 64 bit guests in fact.

If one has a 64 bit CPU, IMO, they are most often advised to use 64 bit Ubuntu, so I do not see the posts or trends you are complaining about.

When education people about 64 bit Ubuntu I suggest you take a more balanced approach and allow people to make a decision for themselves. Your posting style suggests you have a strong opinion and that you may not respect the choices of others. When you push your opinion on others you come across as a "fanboy" or "troll" and your communication is less effective.

[Niko Johnson]

I run Ubuntu 64 bit and its the way to go. runs great

[Bachstelze]

About the issue at hand, I agree that since 64-bit specific issues tend to become less and less common, there isn't really anything that warrants having a "64-bit users" subsection. I would +1 removing it.

[bodhi.zazen]

About the issue at hand, I agree that since 64-bit specific issues tend to become less and less common, there isn't really anything that warrants having a "64-bit users" subsection. I would +1 removing it.

+1 on closing the 64 bit section.

[sanderj]

About the issue at hand, I agree that since 64-bit specific issues tend to become less and less common, there isn't really anything that warrants having a "64-bit users" subsection. I would +1 removing it.

+1 on closing & renaming this 64-bit forum to TFFKA64 (The Forum Formerly Known As 64-bit).

And a suggestion: the 32-bit Ubuntu live/install should check for hardware "64-bit & 4+GB RAM physically installed". If found, it should mention the 64-bit Ubuntu version with it's 4+GB RAM benefit.

[bodhi.zazen]

+1 on closing & renaming this 64-bit forum to TFFKA64 (The Forum Formerly Known As 64-bit).

And a suggestion: the 32-bit Ubuntu live/install should check for hardware "64-bit & 4+GB RAM physically installed". If found, it should mention the 64-bit Ubuntu version with it's 4+GB RAM benefit.

32 bit kernels can use up to 64 Gb of RAM with PAE.

Starting with 9.10 there is a 32 bit PAE kernel in the Ubuntu repositories.

[sanderj]

32 bit kernels can use up to 64 Gb of RAM with PAE.

Starting with 9.10 there is a 32 bit PAE kernel in the Ubuntu repositories.

Interesting. So I can run 9.10 with 32-bit linux-image-generic-pae on my 4GB AMD64, and have access to all memory? No side-effects?

If all memory access is OK with PAE, would you advice activating the 32-bit linux-image-generic-pae kernel if someone's already installed 32-bit Ubuntu? That could be easier than reinstalling with 64-bit.

And: Would you advice the 32-bit linux-image-generic-pae kernel if someone's not yet running any Ubuntu version on his 64-bit 4+GB hardware?

[mick222]

i only have 512mb Ram so see no need or advantage in 64mb that all software does not support.Unless anyone can tell me different.

[sohlside]

re:OP
Not everyone is ready for 64bit. If it weren't for so many people crying out with threats of turning away from Microsoft for dropping support of Xp, they wouldn't have extended support until 2014. Similar things happened when M$ announced the end of Windows 98 support. People went nuts. Why? Not everyone is caught up. If we choose to take the worlds most popular, widely accepted, and most user-friendly distro (I'm biased) and steer users toward a 64bit change, this goes away. I agree 64 bit is awesome and if needed, can be fun to play with. But forcing people to accept a new standard before we even have software application that can make use of multiple threads and virtualization, not to mention excesses of 3.xGB of RAM is a little premature. Hang in there. Maybe we can start a 64 bit users sub-forum (pending admin approval) and hash out some of the stuff we encounter so that when people do catch up on the hardware side we can have a few things hammered out for them.

[cariboo907]

I think you're misreading what is being said. The op was asking why there is still a 64-bit section, now that there are more 64-bit systems in use. Most of the problems in the 64-bit forum can be solved using the same methods as with the 32-bit version. I personally don't see the need for a separate 64-bit section any more.

[bodhi.zazen]

Interesting. So I can run 9.10 with 32-bit linux-image-generic-pae on my 4GB AMD64, and have access to all memory? No side-effects?

Yep.

If all memory access is OK with PAE, would you advice activating the 32-bit linux-image-generic-pae kernel if someone's already installed 32-bit Ubuntu? That could be easier than reinstalling with 64-bit.You install the pae kernel with apt-get, synaptic, or whatever, straight from the repositories, what could be easier ?

And: Would you advice the 32-bit linux-image-generic-pae kernel if someone's not yet running any Ubuntu version on his 64-bit 4+GB hardware?I am not sure what you are asking here, it depends on their needs. If, for whatever reason, someone wants to run 32 bit Ubuntu, and they have more then 3.2 Gb RAM, sure why not use the PAE kernel ? Nothing wrong with that decision.

With that said, I generally advise the 64 bit version for 64 bit CPU.

If you want to try the PAE kernel, I used by default on the 32 bit version of Zenix :

http://zenix-os.net/

[Bachstelze]

Interesting. So I can run 9.10 with 32-bit linux-image-generic-pae on my 4GB AMD64, and have access to all memory? No side-effects?

Additional precision: PAE does not magically increase the memory adress size that each process uses. What it does is allowing the OS to map the 4 GB address space of a process into the 64 GB of virtual memory. This means that while it's true that PAE will in theory let you use up to 64 GB of memory, a single process will still be limited to 4 GB. Therefore, PAE is not a perfect replacement for a 64-bit OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

[running_rabbit07]

I use 64 bit on my system, but I have to have 32bit in a VBox for Cisco Packet Tracer, because it does not work on 64 bit yet.

[sohlside]

I think you're misreading what is being said. The op was asking why there is still a 64-bit section, now that there are more 64-bit systems in use. Most of the problems in the 64-bit forum can be solved using the same methods as with the 32-bit version. I personally don't see the need for a separate 64-bit section any more.

My apologies. I obviously mixed the thoughts of several other posts I had read earlier. Again, very sorry for the miscommunication.

OP is correct. Not much use for 64 bit section when there is so very little differentiation. Humble apologies once again.

[cariboo907]

There's no need to apologize, we are all mistken on occasion :lolflag:

[AldenIsZen]

I think you're misreading what is being said. The op was asking why there is still a 64-bit section, now that there are more 64-bit systems in use. Most of the problems in the 64-bit forum can be solved using the same methods as with the 32-bit version. I personally don't see the need for a separate 64-bit section any more.
As stated above, the default install option is 32 bit, for a reason. It is compatible on all hardware and many Linux users turn to or stay with Linux due to older hardware.

I have a 64 bit PC that is close to 5 years old, but I use 32 bit as I only have 3 gigs of ram, 64 bit software wasn't common therefore little benefit, and 64 bit was buggier in the past for Ubuntu. I may try 64 bit now that it sounds like it is more stable, but we need to keep 32 bit in mind at this point.

So it may be best to merge if any action is taken. 64 bit seems to rarely make a difference in problem resolution unless it is ram amount or software (we don't have forums sections for different software/hardware option combos other than System76 Support, and that is different). Or, we could merge and rename a new section: x86 64-bit Users (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=343) -> x86 64-bit Specific Issues (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=343)

[cariboo907]

You may not have noticed, but the 64-bit section has been closed, as there is no need for it any more.

[AldenIsZen]

Thanks for the update. I saw it on the agenda, so I thought I would chime in. Thanks again Cariboo907.

[lisati]

It might be interesting in a few years time to see if the majority are using 64-bit OS & software, with the occasional user having a request for 32-bit support for an older machine.