View Full Version : [SOLVED] 32 bit vs. 64 bit install
October 11th, 2010, 05:37 PM
I guess my question is: what's the difference? I am currently running Ubuntu 10.10 (Maverick) and it is 32 bit. Everything works great. However, I have a BRAND NEW computer that came with 64 bit Windows 7 installed. Should I have installed the 64 bit version? Why or why not?
October 11th, 2010, 05:46 PM
I haven't done much research into the differences but here's a quote i came across in one of the Ubuntu-Linux website in google:
In my opinion, there’s no need to use this, even if you have a 64‐bit‐capable CPU in your computer, unless your computer has more than 4GB of RAM. The 64‐bit version of Ubuntu has been known to present a handful of annoying compatibility issues that, while not show‐stoppers, can make life more difficult than it needs to be.
October 11th, 2010, 05:53 PM
I have an AMD64 processor, should I install the i386 ISO or the amd64 one? What are the drawbacks of having an amd64 install?
AMD64 is an officially supported architecture with its respective ISO for Ubuntu and all major Ubuntu derivatives. By installing the amd64 ISO, rather than the i386 (32-bit) ISO, there will be some enhancement in performance.
The drawbacks are that Ubuntu, with APT (the package manager for Ubuntu), currently does not support BiArch, which means you likely won't be able to install and run 32bit packages automatically with programs like apt-get, aptitude, and Synaptic on your AMD64 install. This is a problem for users who wish to use some application that is only available for 32-bit. These are rare but do exist. There are possible methods of getting it running, but they involve either copying in the files manually or creating a chroot (see DebootstrapChroot), for example.
Good short read - from above link
October 11th, 2010, 06:10 PM
Ok, gotcha. Makes sense. Glad I have the 32 installed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.