Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    Yea, as I travel through the valley of recurring discussions.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Beans
    743
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    For what it's worth - since opinions differ with experiences. I have been using ubuntu since 2008. I have always installed 64-bit on my machines (since they have all been 64-bit). I have been happy with the results. The primary sofware I run:

    Evolution, not Thunderbird (personal preference)
    LibreOffice
    Firefox
    Skype
    LightScribe
    Eclipse (from eclipse.org, not the repositories)
    Oracle Java
    Fluendo codecs
    Flash

    Most of the time, I will do a clean install of the latest release (currently 12.10). I have found, however, that on my hardware, the 12.10 is more unstable than I am comfortable with. There are features that I would like to use, like webapps, but not in this unstable a form.

    So ...
    I use, and I am very comfortable with, 64-bit 12.04. If you have limited experience with ubuntu specifically, and with linux in general, then this would be my recommendation to you.

    Once you are comfortable, then you may want to try some of the latest stuff. By that time (a few months?), there may be a more stable release of 12.10 for you to try, or perhaps 13.04 will be out and more stable than 12.10 has proven to be.

    Hope this helps,
    "Always take the high road! That way, nothing will hit you when the brown, gooey stuff hits the fan."
    Setup some common software: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/fballem

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Beans
    523
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrrys View Post
    Sorry, but im having a hard time with that answer. 32bit only machines haven't been around for a long time. So for the sake of the few, sacrifice the many?
    Not sure how that amounts to sacrificing the many for the sake of the few on any conceivable level.

    The point was a fairly accurate and straight forward one.

    The main reason that 32bit is supported and recommended is for the support of older computers (which admittedly outnumber 64bit computers still). 32bit AND 64bit computers can both run 32bit Ubuntu, so 32bit is recommended for those users who lack the basic understanding of computer technology required to know whether or not their hardware can run 64bit.


    I'm not aware of a single piece of linux software that can't run on 64bit, and unless you have so little RAM that the tiny bit of extra RAM used in addressing memory makes a difference, (or you depend on some piece of archaic software that won't run on a 64bit system) there is absolutely no advantage what so ever to running 32bit on a 64bit system.

    None.

    At all.


    On top of all that, while the number of old computers out there still running 32bit hardware is quite large, you should keep in mind that 64 has been more or less the standard in desktops and laptops for a few years now, and in terms of computer tech, a few years is a very long time. Even on integrated ITX boards you might use for a HTPC or headless home server are mostly 64bit now. I find it unlikely that Ubuntu will continue to recommend 32bit for very many more releases, and frankly, every time I see 32bit listed as recommended on a new release instead of being more accurately listed as legacy, I'm a little surprised.



    TLDR:

    If you have a system capable of running 64bit, and you have at least 2GB of RAM, there is absolutely no net advantage to 32bit, and many advantages to 64bit. Run 64bit.

    If you have a system capable of running 64bit, but it's very old and you only have 1-1.5GB of RAM, it 'may' be better to run 32bit depending on how you use your computer, but more RAM would be a really good investment.

    If you have a system that is not capable of running 64bit, you have no choice but to run 32bit, although you will have to use a PAE kernel if you have more than 4GB of RAM.
    My blog about getting your life in gear: Growing Up After 30.

    My Photography: Stephen Michael Photography.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Beans
    753

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    Quote Originally Posted by RisingMan View Post
    Because:
    1. Many softwares don't run smoothly on 64-bit OS as expected.
    2. 4 GB RAM is more than enough to me.
    3. Stability of my working environment is very important to me.
    4. I have many useful old software.

    Why ubuntu recommend 32-bit as default?
    Because many softwares are old and they were built around 32-bit OS. Upgrading from 32-bit to 64-bit is not so easy in hardware-software handshake level for many softwares, e.g. system softwares (compilers, assemblers, drivers).
    That's ancient and completely outdated.
    1. That completely untrue. Maybe years ago, but not now.
    2. But you only get 2 GB effectively, even if 4 is the theoretical limit. Is 2 GB enough for you (I'm currently using 7.3)?
    3. 64-bit is just as stable, and in fact (at least from my experience) more stable, especially with large workloads.
    4. Unless by "old" you mean 16-bit, then it'll have no problem working perfectly on 64-bit.

    Extra points are:
    1. Each process can use a maximum of 2 GB, regardless of how much RAM you have free.
    2. PIE executables will run much more slowely.
    3. From what someone said in an earlier post, the 32-bit "recommendation" was a mistake
    4. PAE (the only way to use more RAM on 32-bit) sucks, it's slow and poorly-implimented
    5. Linus Torvalds hates 32-bit.

    Reasons TO use 32-bit instead of 64:
    1. You only have a 32-bit processor
    2. You need to run 16-bit applications (but those won't run on a 32-bit OS unless the CPU is also 32-bit, afaik).
    3. You have a very, very small hard drive and can't handle the slighly larger size of a 64-bit OS and apps.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Beans
    58
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    I wish I knew that the 32 bit recommendation was a mistake. Now I have 32 bit Ubuntu on a 64 bit system! Is it too late to "switch over"?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Beans
    753

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    Quote Originally Posted by pandacookie View Post
    I wish I knew that the 32 bit recommendation was a mistake. Now I have 32 bit Ubuntu on a 64 bit system! Is it too late to "switch over"?
    You can re-install, but not modify the OS from 32- to 64-bit. Other than that there's not much you can do.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Beans
    58
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stonecold1995 View Post
    You can re-install, but not modify the OS from 32- to 64-bit. Other than that there's not much you can do.
    So I guess I'm stuck with 32 bit. Great. Thanks anyway.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Beans
    753

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    Quote Originally Posted by pandacookie View Post
    So I guess I'm stuck with 32 bit. Great. Thanks anyway.
    As far as I know, the only difference between the two are the executables, so files in /bin, /usr/bin, /lib etc. Aside from that most things are exactly the same. So my advice would be to duel boot. You can copy /home to the 64-bit Ubuntu, it'll preserve almost all your settings. When you're comfortable that you've migrated everything then you can remove the 32-bit version and use 64-bit.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Beans
    58
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stonecold1995 View Post
    As far as I know, the only difference between the two are the executables, so files in /bin, /usr/bin, /lib etc. Aside from that most things are exactly the same. So my advice would be to duel boot. You can copy /home to the 64-bit Ubuntu, it'll preserve almost all your settings. When you're comfortable that you've migrated everything then you can remove the 32-bit version and use 64-bit.
    I could do that! Thanks for the idea!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Beans
    58
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal

    Re: 32-bit or 64-bit? 12.04.1 or 12.10?

    Here's another question. Couldn't I just do a fresh install of 64 bit? Like, erase the 32 bit install I have now and just start over? I have all my files backed up, so losing data isn't an issue.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

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
  •