Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74

Thread: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    England
    Beans
    603
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by McRat View Post

    Now I don't know this for a fact but:

    You won't be able at address more than 4GB of memory with a 32bit CPU, nor a HDD larger than 2 TB, IIRC.

    So the main reason to run 64 bit is to go past 4GB and 2 TB?
    That is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRat View Post
    A) It doesn't come with a GUI, but that is easily fixed.
    That is not. Maybe you tried with the server version?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Norco, CA USA
    Beans
    132
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by Sub101 View Post
    That is correct.



    That is not. Maybe you tried with the server version?
    Yup. I was building a file server. The only two versions I saw were 32 GUI and 64 Server.
    Patrick McSwain - New 32bit & 64bit Ubuntu 10.04 user as of 5/1/2010.
    Networking new Linux computers into my existing Wintel-based small technical business.
    I was a DOS programmer in a previous life. No UNIX/Linux experience at all.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Norco, CA USA
    Beans
    132
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by Sub101 View Post
    That is correct.



    ...
    But it's always hard to say something can't be done.

    Remember the 80286 CPU? That was a 16-bit processor. In theory it could not address more than 64k. But it could actually use 640k for program area by paging. Segmented Addressing?

    Could somebody come up with BIOS that could permit a 32bit CPU chip to use paging? Or use a HDD past 2TB? This I can't say.
    Patrick McSwain - New 32bit & 64bit Ubuntu 10.04 user as of 5/1/2010.
    Networking new Linux computers into my existing Wintel-based small technical business.
    I was a DOS programmer in a previous life. No UNIX/Linux experience at all.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Unknown
    Beans
    16,639
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by McRat View Post
    So the main reason to run 64 bit is to go past 4GB and 2 TB?
    You guys may or may not have seen this.
    http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubun...bit-benchmarks

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Norco, CA USA
    Beans
    132
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by philinux View Post
    You guys may or may not have seen this.
    http://www.tuxradar.com/content/ubun...bit-benchmarks
    Great link!

    I'd like to see that broken down by file size though. It is looking like the bigger the files you process, the more important 64bit is.

    But for many users, their computer processing speed is not a bottle neck.
    Patrick McSwain - New 32bit & 64bit Ubuntu 10.04 user as of 5/1/2010.
    Networking new Linux computers into my existing Wintel-based small technical business.
    I was a DOS programmer in a previous life. No UNIX/Linux experience at all.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Waco, Texas
    Beans
    348
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    I've been running 64-bit Linux for about a year now (still on 9.04), and the only thing I could see that may stop new users is crummy Flash support. 64-bit 9.04 and I think 10.04 both us 32-bit Flash with a wrapper to work on 64-bit, and this causes LOTS of problems. 64-bit Flash for Linux is out there, but it's still Alpha... though I find it much more stable than using 32-bit Flash w/ wrapper on 64-bit Linux.

    Outside of this, I don't know what other problems new users would face since most everything I've seen in the repositories is out there for both 32-bit and 64-bit Linux.

    Sam
    Linux User since 1996, #242069
    System 76 PanP5 - 64bit Xubuntu 12.04

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northeast U.S.
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky. View Post
    I use 64 bit, but darn it all each time I do an install I have to screw around to get Flash working properly. This could be a turn off for tons of users.
    Screw around with what? Takes me 30 seconds to install. Just put the 64bit libflashplayer.so file into /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins folder. Easy.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northeast U.S.
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by McRat View Post

    A) It doesn't come with a GUI, but that is easily fixed.
    Where have you been? Maybe back in '04 64bit was different, but I can assure you 64bit ubuntu has a gui just like 32bit. There's really no difference.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northeast U.S.
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by JDShu View Post
    I stopped using 64 bit because of this issue. I don't want to hunt around the internet for instructions if I can help it.
    Hunt for what? Are you capable of putting a file into /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins ? If so, that's all you have to do. I don't know why people make a mountain out of a mole hill.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Porirua, New Zealand
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

    Quote Originally Posted by McRat View Post
    But it's always hard to say something can't be done.

    Remember the 80286 CPU? That was a 16-bit processor. In theory it could not address more than 64k. But it could actually use 640k for program area by paging. Segmented Addressing?

    Could somebody come up with BIOS that could permit a 32bit CPU chip to use paging? Or use a HDD past 2TB? This I can't say.
    True, but incomplete. My first x86 machine had an 80286. True, the data bus was 16bit, but, if memory serves correctly, the addresses were 24 bit. Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80286
    Forum DOs and DON'Ts
    Never assume that information you find using a search engine is up-to-date.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •