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

[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.

[cariboo]

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

[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.