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

[Garyu]

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.

[prshah]

faced with "64-bit is harder to get into than 32-bit so it is NOT worth it".

I was/am one of the people who keep making this recommendation; your post and similar recent posts make me think I am probably wrong.

I have a 64-bit capable (Core2Duo, capable motherboard, etc) system, but have been using 32bit for the past three years and have never even moved beyond the 64bit live CD.

Now, apparently, it's better in every way...

food for thought.

[nzadLithium]

I've been using 64bit since I started using linux (I thought that was about a year and a half ago but I realised that I've been through 5 ubuntu releases and I think they come out 6monthly? Does that mean i've been using for 2 and a half years? Wow!!!!!!!!!!).

My friends brother had 32bit ubuntu on his pc, and I was like woah that looks cool can i borrow it?, he was like sure, I took the case and it turns out it had both 64bit and 32bit versions of edgy in it I figured my pc's 64bit, why not?

I kinda agree with what Garyu said, 64bit works just as well as 32bit plus you can have more memory I'm not sure if I would ask this section to be removed but it would be good to see an x86 32-bit users section as well so 64bit doesn't look like the big scary monster from under your bed

Although I think theres a bigger issue than this threads name
If you have a look at ubuntu's download page, you'll notice that you see the options of LTS and the current version. Then you have download location and the download button. Most people wouldn't notice the little checkbox hidden down below the bottom of the screen that says "Only change these if you know you need different values."
Guess what that checkbox is for? selecting 64bit or 32bit! 32bit is default and most poeple wouldn't even notice that option was there!

[coolbrook]

Perhaps there are more people limited to 32-bit than you think. I like that Linux supports and secures older machines that run/ran Win9x. The reality is that the majority of users don't need the latest hardware. Gaming is my only limitation. I'm not a gamer.

[sanderj]

My AMD64 X2 desktop with 4GB RAM is on 64-bit Ubuntu since I bought the machine (summer 2007).

I have two machines on 32-bit Ubuntu because ... the hardware is 32-bit:
- a brand-new (!) Atom N270 Netbook: 32-bit
- a 3 year old Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) laptop: 32-bit too

So: 32-bit Ubuntu is still relevant as for a lot of existing and even new hardware (netbooks) it's the only option.

[Jouke74]

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. In speed there is little advantage unless you have dedicated number crunching applications.

Generally, the majority of people use their PC for internet, email, chats working out stuff in office applications. For this you don't need 64 bits. Gamers are on the edge of requiring 64 bit to allocate their gaming needs, however, those are (currently) most likely running a windows 64 bit operating system (linux has 1.5% market share?).

Wait still for two years and when 4-8 GB of internal memory is common and maybe needed in PC's, then the big user-shift to 64 bit will come. Until then I think the forum will keep having a 64 bit section.

[Npl]

if it hadnt been for some games I would still edge along on my old AthlonXP System (which I inherited to my family and is in use everyday). There still are a ton of 32bit systems in use, and unless you game or run a server even 8 year old Processors are enough for your everyday work - heck most netbooks that are sold today barely are faster than them.

[nzadLithium]

All of those reasons are very compelling not to switch if you already have your system setup.

But what if its not, what if I am setting up a new system or am deciding to try linux for the first time? Can someone provide a reason as to why I would specifically want a 32bit operating system on my computer when my system is capable of 64bit? Big number crunching goes faster, and I have yet to find something I can do on 32bit that I can't on 64.

[Garyu]

So: 32-bit Ubuntu is still relevant as for a lot of existing and even new hardware (netbooks) it's the only option.

I am not asking the developers to stop working on 32-bit linux.

I am asking the forum staff to acknowledge that 64-bit is the new standard.

Just now, I checked the major online computer dealer in Sweden. They have one 32-bit CPU for sale: Pentium dual core. All of their other processors they have for sale are 64-bit (or in some cases maybe it would be better to say 64-bit enabled or something, but still). So basically, anyone buying a new computer will have a 64-bit architechture. They are unable to choose anything else.

With laptops, the situation may be different. But like I said, I'm not saying that 32-bit linux should be discontinued. I'm just saying that there is no reason to treat 32-bit as the standard architechture.

[ussndmac]

Until I can install 64bit and it be as stable as the 32bit install, 32bit IS the standard for me.

Granted, I use the RT kernel so YMMV.