Is 64 bit faster?

[capecove]

Morning all...

I have been in the computer industry for 16 years now. I have always been an intel/microsoft guy but as of late have been very disenchanted by Microsoft and have been trying various Linux distros. Boy, I like Feisty Fawn! I installed the 64 bit version but was disappointed by the fact that normal home computer stuff does not work at times, like flash. Can anyone tell me if the 64 bit version is really that much faster that I shouldn't go down a level to 32 bit Ubuntu?

I am talking about my home computer here. Nothing super intensive like AutoCAD type of stuff. Just browsing, digital photos, etc.

I have an Athlon 3500+ and 2 gig of RAM by the way... :)

Thanks for your insight, have a splendid day...

[Tux0r]

64bit is faster yes
The cpu processes larger stuff at once browsing the web wont be much faster :P
64bit is really useful for video encoding and stuff that takes 100% cpu and takes long time

encoding, servers, some games

[Tux0r]

Oh yeah emulation also ;)

[capecove]

Thanks for the advice... Since this is my first Linux OS that will stick on my hardware (I tried Mandrake 6 many years ago and Corel Linux after that, I couldn't really get into either one really), I won't mind reinstalling it from the 32bit CD I ordered as well, I just installed it Friday night.

The only thing I can complain about is that I have a Windows network at home that my wife needs to use to print to a Canon IP4000 and Oki B4300. I wish I could make that work out. Maybe with time... :)

I was going to wax eternal about how great Ubuntu seemed to be again but I'll save that for another part of the forums.

Thanks again for the help!

Jason

[Tux0r]

Oh yeah if you want lots of things to just work then use 32bit until 2008 or something :P 64bit is not their priority #1

[Kilz]

Oh yeah if you want lots of things to just work then use 32bit until 2008 or something :P 64bit is not their priority #1

That is a very misleading statment. Maybe if it were made about Breezy Badger I would have agreed. But Feisty Fawn has the common applications most people use. There is no sense in waiting. Whatever isnt there, anyone who can click and copy paste can install.

[Tux0r]

By 2008 I mean that Flash will be 64bit and etc, no hazzle you know.
But yeah, if you are a knowledged person who likes to configure stuff then go ahead...

[capecove]

I guess I'll just stick to the 64 bit version. I'll try to use Kilz' walk throughs to get a handle on this whole no flash thing. Thanks again, I look forward to many years of Ubuntu happiness. :)

[Kilz]

By 2008 I mean that Flash will be 64bit and etc, no hazzle you know.
But yeah, if you are a knowledged person who likes to configure stuff then go ahead...

Flash isnt that big of a hassle for 64bit users. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=425672) That is , if you can click a mouse. :D There is no version of Linux, that you dont need to configure a little, and knowlage isnt that important, if you know how to read, Ubuntu has some great community documents in the wiki.

[Tux0r]

That's still a 32bit plugin you are using
Meaning 64bit isn't ready (my opinion)

[Kilz]

That's still a 32bit plugin you are using
Meaning 64bit isn't ready (my opinion)

So the opinion of one person about one little plugin, that now works with the 64bit browser is enough to make 64bit not ready? Go spread the FUD someplace else please. Not even 64bit windows has a 64bit Flash plugin.

[Tux0r]

That was an example. I bet there are more closed source stuff out there that don't want to be 64bit.

[capecove]

That was an example. I bet there are more closed source stuff out there that don't want to be 64bit.
I suppose the simple fact of the matter is that I am willing to accept that not every thing I run will be 64bit. I assume that there will always be some older/non mainstream apps that will be a little strange. I know that there is some frustration about the fact that mega software companies are not trying to get things to work in a 64bit environment (or even Linux really). I can understand the economics of the situation, that is, that we as consumers of a certain product want that product improved and also understand that the company that could provide this additional functionality cannot jusitfy doing this from a financial or political standpoint (don't want to make M$ angry for fear of some blowback).

Anyhow, this help has been valuable for me and I thank you all again. Funny that after so many years of using computers (and knowing what I am doing at least most of the time) that I could feel almost as though I am starting over again in many respects. :)

[Tux0r]

You're welcome. see you later maybe

[stmiller]

So the opinion of one person about one little plugin, that now works with the 64bit browser is enough to make 64bit not ready? Go spread the FUD someplace else please. Not even 64bit windows has a 64bit Flash plugin.

Word. I use 64bit Feisty and enjoy flash, java, wine, everything. It was painless to setup just following the threads and info here in this forum.

[rsambuca]

The only thing I can complain about is that I have a Windows network at home that my wife needs to use to print to a Canon IP4000 and Oki B4300. I wish I could make that work out. Maybe with time... :)

Jason

Turboprint (http://www.turboprint.info/) has printer drivers for the Canon IP4000. There is a free download version that let's you print in draft mode (which is fine for documents), but if you want high quality photos, you have to purchase it.

[Lapino]

You don't even need turboprint for the ip4000 anymore. The gutenprint project has support for it now. The only thing that doesn't entirely work at the moment is the CD printing. (It works, but not from all programs and the print is of-center. But Turboprint has that same problem too).

[capecove]

Wow... Again, I am blown away by the responses. I wonder if everyone else feels a little like part of a family here? Perhaps I'm just delusional? ;)

[pentax]

newbie here;) I see alot of threads talking about speed differences between 32 & 64m but what about multitasking? In theory at least, shouldn't 64bits be superior to 32 bits regarding multitasking-tasking?
In my own anecdotal exepience, I am blown away by my Feisty 64's multitasking ability.

[©TriMoon®]

Im not sure what you ask there, because IMHO multitasking isn´t related to 32vs64 bit, its a feature of the OS.
The only related part could be the extra functionality build into the duo-core CPU´s and the like, which im unsure if that is being activly used in the generic kernels atm...

[jespdj]

That was an example. I bet there are more closed source stuff out there that don't want to be 64bit.

So what? 32-bit software also runs on 64-bit Linux. You don't need a 32-bit OS to run 32-bit software. Do you have an example of an interesting piece of software that runs only on 32-bit Linux and that is impossible to get running on 64-bit Linux? :roll:

[Tux0r]

So what? 32-bit software also runs on 64-bit Linux. You don't need a 32-bit OS to run 32-bit software. Do you have an example of an interesting piece of software that runs only on 32-bit Linux and that is impossible to get running on 64-bit Linux? :roll:
Why change to 64bit if that app isn't, is what I mean

[capecove]

This was my first post to this forum and it generated 3 pages worth of responses. Wow. :)

Overall, I would say that 64 bit is a wise decision for those with the equipment and just a little inclination to tinker. The future of computing is really in the direction of 64 bit computing. Why shouldn't we all be making an effort ot make 64 bit work?

I started using computers back in 1991 with a CP/M Toshiba setup. Little did I know that anything better than 16 bit computing would be a possibility at the time. Now I'm wondering when we'll start seeing 128 bit stuff. :)

From what I have seen, if you just want no hassles, mainstream support and the quickest release stuff from major software outlets, than 32 bit is right for you (for now). But, if you want to take full advantage of your hardware and be ready for the future of software releases, not to mention experience a more rewarding feeling while using your computer then 64 bit will work. It may take some more effort, but you will make it work. So far I have found all the help I have needed right here on these forums (well, maybe a couple other websites as well). :)

[Tux0r]

Sounds good

[fabertawe]

Overall, I would say that 64 bit is a wise decision for those with the equipment and just a little inclination to tinker. The future of computing is really in the direction of 64 bit computing. Why shouldn't we all be making an effort ot make 64 bit work? [snip]
From what I have seen, if you just want no hassles, mainstream support and the quickest release stuff from major software outlets, than 32 bit is right for you (for now). But, if you want to take full advantage of your hardware and be ready for the future of software releases, not to mention experience a more rewarding feeling while using your computer then 64 bit will work. It may take some more effort, but you will make it work. So far I have found all the help I have needed right here on these forums (well, maybe a couple other websites as well). :)

The forums are incredible and there really isn't that much difference between 32bit and 64bit installs (there IS a slightly steeper learning curve with 64bit but I honestly think a little grounding will serve you very well in the future). I've been using 64bit Ubuntu for just about a year now (since Dapper, never tried 32bit) and one thing I have noticed is a noticeable increase in traffic in this 64bit forum, especially recently... which speaks volumes about the future of 32bit computing ;)

Paul

[Kilz]

This was my first post to this forum and it generated 3 pages worth of responses. Wow. :)

Overall, I would say that 64 bit is a wise decision for those with the equipment and just a little inclination to tinker. The future of computing is really in the direction of 64 bit computing. Why shouldn't we all be making an effort ot make 64 bit work?

I started using computers back in 1991 with a CP/M Toshiba setup. Little did I know that anything better than 16 bit computing would be a possibility at the time. Now I'm wondering when we'll start seeing 128 bit stuff. :)

From what I have seen, if you just want no hassles, mainstream support and the quickest release stuff from major software outlets, than 32 bit is right for you (for now). But, if you want to take full advantage of your hardware and be ready for the future of software releases, not to mention experience a more rewarding feeling while using your computer then 64 bit will work. It may take some more effort, but you will make it work. So far I have found all the help I have needed right here on these forums (well, maybe a couple other websites as well). :)


The reason its got so many responces imho is that some people like to spread fud, so others have to answer it.
I think its a misconception that 32bit will be easier.
1. Spread about by all those that used some 64bit version in the past (before Dapper) and found something want easy.
2. Spread by Microsoft users who expect that if you have to do more than click "OK" its to hard.
3. Spread by blind people who dont seem to notice that the rest of this forum outside of the 64bit section is full of people with 32bit install problems!!!
4. Spread by people with no idea about the 64bit version other than it "sounds hard" so it must be.
5. Spread by people of good intentions pointing out the slight headaches in the 64bit version who totally ignore any problems with the 32bit. That or make it sound like 32bit will never be a problem.
6. Spread by people with no idea that when they point out what to most linux uses is no problem a "newbie" runs away to what they perceive as perfect but what isnt (#3).
The 6 reasons above are the 6 most common, but there are combinations. Sadly this is what we (64bit users ) have to deal with.

[capecove]

I am clearly violating number 5 and helping to cause future #6 issues. :)

Sorry, I should have said 32 bit users MAY encounter "fewer problems" rather than "no problems". I only say this since everyone seems to be installing 32 bit and that they can use browser plug ins on a fairly simple basis. I am not a hardcore tried and true used of any distro and I can only imagine the hassles of setting up either system.

However, I know that Linux has come a long way for the new user since I last tried Linux (Corel Linux). Specifically, this Ubuntu project is something I am seriously considering suggesting my father does in another year (I have to support him so will need that much time at least using Ubuntu to feel confident in doing so). He is a die hard Windows user but as he ages (he's not old) he takes my advice more often.

Anyhow, 64 bit is not the problem. The problem is clearly outlined here (which I am sure you have all read but I found fascinating...): http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm.

The reason its got so many responces imho is that some people like to spread fud, so others have to answer it.
I think its a misconception that 32bit will be easier.
1. Spread about by all those that used some 64bit version in the past (before Dapper) and found something want easy.
2. Spread by Microsoft users who expect that if you have to do more than click "OK" its to hard.
3. Spread by blind people who dont seem to notice that the rest of this forum outside of the 64bit section is full of people with 32bit install problems!!!
4. Spread by people with no idea about the 64bit version other than it "sounds hard" so it must be.
5. Spread by people of good intentions pointing out the slight headaches in the 64bit version who totally ignore any problems with the 32bit. That or make it sound like 32bit will never be a problem.
6. Spread by people with no idea that when they point out what to most linux uses is no problem a "newbie" runs away to what they perceive as perfect but what isnt (#3).
The 6 reasons above are the 6 most common, but there are combinations. Sadly this is what we (64bit users ) have to deal with.