PDA

View Full Version : [all variants] 32 or 64 AMD version?



Kaisersoze
April 24th, 2008, 11:51 AM
Hi!
Which version should I install 32 or amd? I have a 64 bit CPU but heard that 64 versions have less options like codecs etc.. is this true? Should I use 32 bit instead in order to havefull access to everything?

Thanks

philinux
April 24th, 2008, 11:55 AM
What you heard is old stuff - there's w64codecs now and ndiswrapper and flash come preinstalled. Try the live cd thats the best way to evaluate.

warbread
April 24th, 2008, 11:57 AM
I've been using it for a while now and I've not noticed any difference in software availability. Speed, however, has improved.

_godbout_
April 24th, 2008, 11:59 AM
Codecs should be ok. Applications, however, it depends.
I had troubles some days ago installing TuxGuitar, but with a bit of debug, it's usually ok.

chrisdugdale
April 24th, 2008, 12:03 PM
Even a couple of months ago I'd have said use the 32bit for a while. Now all the bits of the 64bit seem to work nicely and for friends who ask I've changed to saying use the one that matches your computer. There are only a couple of glitches I've noticed, and they don't affect usability. Either way, back up your data before you change your system!

Michael.Godawski
April 24th, 2008, 12:55 PM
Make also sure your hardware supports 64 bit. I do not mean the obvious architecture of the main processor, but for instance drivers for your wlan device.

_godbout_
May 1st, 2008, 12:20 PM
I switched back to the 32bits version. The main reason is that the madwifi drivers for my Atheros wireless card don't work for the 64bits version. First I used the ndiswrapper, but now I want to monitor my card directly in Ubuntu. So there are still some problems that can make people stuck with the 32 bits version.