64-bit linux?

[sethmahoney]

Hey all. I had some problems with my computer a while back, and had to get a new system. For now I'm running windows, but I'd like to go back to linux (I can't seem to find windows equivalents of linux programs I had grown to love! Imagine that!). Anyhow, I understand, from reading people's frustrated posts, that Ubuntu's 64-bit support is fairly lacking. Is this a problem for linux generally, or are there distributions out there that have well-developed 64-bit support?

[Mutt]

G'day,

It seems to be a problem with all of them, well at least with the distros I've tried it has. Although it does feel like cheating running the 32 bit versions, if you're just an average type user it's unlikely you'd notice any performance difference.

John

[prizrak]

The problem with 64 bit Linux (and Windows for that matter) is the lack of 64 bit drivers and other software that notices the difference between 32 and 64bit. You should stick with a 32bit version for the time being.

[poofyhairguy]

Is this a problem for linux generally, or are there distributions out there that have well-developed 64-bit support?

Its honestly a third party problem. 64 bit Ubuntu runs great for me until I need Macromedia Flash, Window's Media Codecs, Sun's Java, etc.

It does well if you are an OSS purist as you won't notice the difference at all I think (except the extra speed).

[bonzodog]

I run ubuntu dapper 64 bit, and for flash I use RAOF's workaround with a 32 bit firefox in my home dir, and the linux32 binary. Windows media codecs: hrm...mplayer 64 will handle .wmv's and quicktime, and .rm files. Otherwise, I haven't actually needed them, as I have NO content from the dark side. As for Java, I use blackdown, it seems to work well.