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

[RLDr]

64-bit!? I still haven't migrated off of 16-bit!

You can try to pull-out yourself from that 16-bit loop.
Here is some useful information.
Reference:
[amd64 or x86-64 is an extension of the IA-32 32-bit version of the x86 instruction set. It supports vastly larger virtual and physical address spaces than are possible on IA-32, thereby allowing programmers to conveniently work with much larger data sets. x86-64 also provides 64-bit general purpose registers and numerous other enhancements. The original specification was created by AMD, and has been implemented by AMD, Intel, VIA, and others. It is fully backwards compatible with 16-bit and 32-bit x86 code.[1](p13-14) Because the full x86 16-bit and 32-bit instruction sets remains implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties,[2] although existing applications that are recoded to take advantage of new features of the processor design may see performance increases.
AMD's method of extending Intel's 32-bit x86 instruction set to be a subset of its x86-64 instruction set is the same technique Intel employed to extend its 16-bit x86 instruction set to 32 bits."]

I have decided to triple boot new 64-bit Ubuntu 12.04 LTS with existing (Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, 32-bit and Windows-7, 32-bit; dual boot) system.
Why not you?

[jerome1232]

It was an ironic joke, I've been using 64-bit Ubuntu since... man, hardy I think, a very long time. It was meant to point out that 32 bit is antiquated technology now and people need to stop clinging to it like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The only machine in my house that runs 32 bit anything is my netbook, and that's because it has only 1 GB of ram.

[ammofreak]

Hi :
In a nutshell: use a 32 bit version for your desktop & use a 64 bit version for your server. Why?

The reason Ubuntu recommends a 32 bit desktop version is because not all software is compatible with a 64 bit architecture. Especially multimedia software for which most desktop users enjoy a lot. Servers don't!

Further: if you do install a 64 bit desktop version, I will tell you right now that trying to fix all your 32 bit software problems with 'multiarch' will simply NOT work. You will, let me repeat, you will, eventually become so frustrated that a light bulb will appear in that thinking part of your head (oh, an epiphany!). And, above that light bulb, in flashing neon, there resides some celestial words (albeit somewhat kaleidoscopic): "hey, if I install a 32 bit desktop version, my compatibility problems will be solved!"

Bits & pieces:
- Ubuntu 10.04 and newer should support PAE out of the box. That is, if you want to install more than 4GB of RAM (and your motherboard is capable) with a 32 bit desktop version, you can!
- there is no significant speed difference between 32 & 64 bit desktop versions. Any palpable processing speed difference would be apparent only for programs running intense graphics and/or number crunching. So, if your specific desktop purpose is graphics and/or numbers, then yes; use a 64 bit desktop version.
- one is realistically looking at a minimum of 5 years from this date before 64 bit architecture is completely, 100%, implemented across the electronic & software board.

Addendum: when one starts to hear of 128 bit computer architecture implementation, it will only then be safe to say "32 bit is dead, 64 bit is the norm, and 128 bit architecture is the topic of another discussion here debating similar points!"

PS: if you are the type that enjoys spending countless hours looking for solutions to the many quirks & quarks of computer software, then please disregard the above...
PPS: just think of me as a devil's advocate (tongue in cheek)

Have a nice day!

[VeeDubb]

Hi :
In a nutshell: use a 32 bit version for your desktop & use a 64 bit version for your server. Why?

The reason Ubuntu recommends a 32 bit desktop version is because not all software is compatible with a 64 bit architecture. Especially multimedia software for which most desktop users enjoy a lot. Servers don't!

Further: if you do install a 64 bit desktop version, I will tell you right now that trying to fix all your 32 bit software problems with 'multiarch' will simply NOT work. You will, let me repeat, you will, eventually become so frustrated that a light bulb will appear in that thinking part of your head (oh, an epiphany!). And, above that light bulb, in flashing neon, there resides some celestial words (albeit somewhat kaleidoscopic): "hey, if I install a 32 bit desktop version, my compatibility problems will be solved!"

You sir, impress me greatly. Not many people would be willing to resurrect a post this old to post something that is this factually incorrect. These comments are more outdated than the thread you've resurrected to post them in.

There is little if any 32bit software out there that won't run on 64bit at the present time. While there may be something floating around out there, having a serious compatibility issue because of 64bit is the rare exception at this point, not the rule. The handful of 32bit only codecs that are out there, are also packagedup to install flawlessly on 32bit systems.

I'm not aware of a single multi-media codec that is 32bit only. Ubuntu has done an excellent job of making sure that all of the codecs you could want are packaged up in the repos. I honestly can't remember the last time I had to install a codec manually, but it was certainly a a couple years ago or more.




As for your comment that 64bit won't become the norm until 128bit comes out, that's simply absurd. That's like saying that driving a car instead of riding a horse won't become the norm until the Star Trek style teleporter is invented.

As much as I hate to repost the same thing over and over again, let me lay out a clear test for whether you should be running 32bit or 64bit.

1. Do you know what the terms 32bit and 64bit mean?
2. Is your computer capable of running 64bit?
3. Do you have at least 2GB of RAM? (Which is plenty to overcome any minor loss of efficiency with memory addressing)

If you answered yes to all three questions, and you're not running some insanely archaic and poorly packaged software that happens to be mission critical, then you absolutely should be running 64bit as it will allow you to take full advantage of your hardware's capabilities. For that matter, if you are running some insanely archaic and poorly packaged software, you should spend some time and energy looking for a newer and better maintained replacement, regardless of what OS you're running.

Ubuntu continues to recommend 32bit because there are still older computers that won't run 64bit, and there are still people who have older computers and don't know the difference between 32 and 64bit. Recommending 32bit means that people can be completely ignorant of their hardware and just install the recommended version.

[Slim Odds]

+10

[ammofreak]

Please forgive me DeeDubb
I did not know that one isn't suppose to let others know here what one has experienced using the Ubuntu operating system!. Again, forgive me!
I have been using the Ubuntu distro since version 8.04. And the range of CPUs upon which I have implemented both the 32 and 64 bit desktop & server packages range from the old P4 to the newer i7 quad-cores. Presently I administer a 12.04LTS (x64) web server & develop websites on a development desktop running 12.04LTS (x32).
My CHOICE for a 32 bit desktop lies upon the experience I have had trying to run various multimedia software packages & development software. From Skype to Eclipse, I have run into numerous problems relating to the computer's architecture!
As to your aspersions to my 'ignorance' with computers: I have come to find in using this forum there are some here possessing egos bigger than reality. Me, I like having both feet on the ground. Have a nice day....

[VeeDubb]

I'm sure we can discuss this without further undue rancor, sarcasm, or subtle insults. Let's start with the software.

Skype and Eclipse are in fact perfect examples of what I was talking about. They are both available in the Ubuntu repositories for 12.10 64bit. That means that they can be installed by a complete neophyte with a few mouse clicks. No install issues there.

Once installed, Skype is known to have difficulties for some people, but this has almost nothing to do with the 64bit architecture, and nearly everything to do with Pulse Audio or specific kernel releases. Sadly, many of the work-arounds for the PA related issues with Skype are written for 32bit, which means that different and slightly less well documented work-arounds are required for a 64bit system with the same hardware. But again, the issue there is a particular combination of PA, hardware, and/or kernel that doesn't play well with Skype. On the upside, PA has been getting steadily better, and Skype has also started to catch up with PA.

As for eclipse, the only likely problem I can think of with running eclipse on 64bit, is that if your end goal is to compile software in C or C++ for 32bit CPUs, you would need to go through some additional steps to compile for 32bit. Of course, I don't see that as being a fair detraction from the advantages of running a 64bit system, and it really has nothing to do with eclipse.

Alternatively, the issues could be with add-ons that have been written for eclipse which don't play nice with 64bit, but that would again bring us right back to poorly developed/maintained/packaged software.

As for choices and what one is or is not supposed to do on the forum, you're perfectly welcome to run 32bit. It does offer a VERY small number of advantages, and if those happen to be more important to you than the vast improvements in other areas offered by 64bit, then I say more power to you.

I would also encourage you to share your personal computing experiences if you feel others could learn from them. That said, I try very hard to do the same thing, and for me that includes calling people out when they post a-typical experiences as absolutes. Less experienced users could easily read that as the final post in a long discussion, and be unfairly swayed by something that is, as I said, factually incorrect. Specifically, I would bring your attention to the following comments, which I will address directly. (and yes, I realize it would have been more productive and civil of me to do that in the first place. Mea Culpa.)

The reason Ubuntu recommends a 32 bit desktop version is because not all software is compatible with a 64 bit architecture.

Factually Incorrect: The primary reason is that all x86 computers manufactured in the last, what, 15-20 years? are compatible with 32bit, while only computers with a 64bit CPU (every computer made in the last several years, and most of them made in the last decade or so) can run 64bit Ubuntu. Because of this, inexperienced or uniformed users of older hardware may not know the difference, leading them to unsuccessfully attempt to install an incompatible version, while users of modern computers can run 32bit without an enormous detriment. At this point in time, software compatibility, if it's a concern at all, is a distant second.

Especially multimedia software for which most desktop users enjoy a lot.

Grossly Outdated: While I certainly agree that desktop users tend to be heavy users of multimedia software, the suggestion that multi-media software is somehow especially problematic with 64bit is patently absurd. Virtually any codec out there, with the possible exception of niche oddities, is available in the repos. At one point in time, multimedia was a concern with 64bit, and there were extremely lengthy posts with every new Ubuntu release detailing how to fix and/or work around all of the multimedia hell that resulted from running 64bit. (On a side note, I have to admit I remember those days fondly. It was always a lot of fun when a new 64 came out, trying to suss out all of the stuff that didn't work) Today, on the other hand, this is simply not an issue, and it hasn't been for some time.

Even more can be said for the creation side of multimedia. Video, audio, graphical and 3D editors are all not only widely available in 64bit, but those which have been properly written to take full advantage of 64bit can significantly out-perform their 32bit counterparts on the same hardware. The creation of multi-media is arguably the most highly benefited area of home computing by the migration to 64bit, because they are all highly CPU dependent tasks.

Further: if you do install a 64 bit desktop version, I will tell you right now that trying to fix all your 32 bit software problems with 'multiarch' will simply NOT work.

Gross Over-generalization: While this may have been your personal experience, and is almost certainly the case in a few limited situations, (mostly involving poorly developed/maintained/packaged software), I've not seen a single shred of evidence to suggest that this is true for most users, and I've looked. I've not had a multi-arch related issue in years, and I run Skype, Eclipse, buckets of multimedia, linux games, windows games through WINE and PlayOnLinux, commercially developed payware like AfterShotPro, and even virtualization software for the small handful of things that I still just can't do on linux. One look at any of the myriad discussions on this topic will show you that while some people do have problems like you've eluded to, MANY more have experiences like mine. That's not extrapolating my personal experience as absolute fact. That's crowd-sourcing.

You will, let me repeat, you will, eventually become so frustrated that a light bulb will appear in that thinking part of your head.....

Unreasonable and Unfounded Absolutism: Again, this is not sharing an experience. This is taking one experience and presenting it as a universal and absolute fact. While I stand by my comment that you're well within your rights to post such things, I will often be at the front of the line in pointing out the logical fallacy. That's not an attack or directed at you personally (although I acknowledge my previous comments were unnecessarily snotty), it's simply my attempt at doing my part.

[jerome1232]

I remember when we had a 64-bit sub-forum, it was taken down due to a lack of problems actually stemming from running 64-bit.

I think that says a lot.

[oldfred]

Ubuntu kept the recommendation for 32 bit as they found 30% of users had older systems.

Bug report on Text reads "not recommended" for 64-bit from 2010
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-we...nt/+bug/585940
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2

But current versions of Ubuntu with Unity require a somewhat newer system with more RAM and Video to run well. And real old systems without PAE are now not supported except in Xubuntu or Lubuntu.

And now new UEFI systems will not boot with 32 bit so you have to use 64 bit for those systems.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2028717
Ubuntu 12.10: 32-bit vs. 64-bit Linux Performance
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...210_3264&num=1
Assuming your hardware is x86_64 capable (basically any modern Intel/AMD CPU) and have at least 2GB of RAM, you really should be running the 64-bit version.
Essentially says if you can use the 64bit kernel you should.April 2011
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ty_pae64&num=1
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/32bit_and_64bit
Ubuntu 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, 64-bit Kernel Benchmarks Dec 2009
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...u_32_pae&num=1
Linus does not like PAE or 32 bit.
http://cl4ssic4l.wordpress.com/2011/...lds-about-pae/

[Slim Odds]

Ubuntu kept the recommendation for 32 bit as they found 30% of users had older systems.
<cut>

It's always best to try to please the 30%