How much longer we will have 32 bit distributions?

[jpkeisala]

I was trying to google information wheater Ubuntu is shifting more towards 64 bit or stays releasing both 32 and 64 bit versions but I could not find answer.
Wouldn't it be better if Ubuntu would be offered mainly on 64 bit and if there is still need 32 bit could be called "legacy" version or something like that?

[ArtF10]

NO!

If it does happen, right now would be too early.

[RiceMonster]

It's taking a lot longer for a lot of proprietary stuff to start support for 64 bit, so it's still a long way off until 32 bit becomes history like 16 bit.

[Vince4Amy]

It's taking a lot longer for a lot of proprietary stuff to start support for 64 bit, so it's still a long way off until 32 bit becomes history like 16 bit.

Not to mention that a lot of Netbooks are still 32-bit.

[jespdj]

If it does happen, right now would be too early.
Really? Why?

In my opinion, the 64-bit version should become the default version, and 32-bit should be offered for older computers (and netbooks).

64-bit Ubuntu works just as well as 32-bit Ubuntu. I've been using 64-bit since 7.10 without any problems.

The last two problems have been Java and Flash, and both are being solved. Recently, Sun released Java 6 update 12 with a 64-bit native Java browser plug-in and there's also a 64-bit native version of Flash 10 available (although it's still an alpha version, it works very well).


It's taking a lot longer for a lot of proprietary stuff to start support for 64 bit, so it's still a long way off until 32 bit becomes history like 16 bit.
Note that 32-bit software also runs on 64-bit Ubuntu, so the fact that some proprietary programs are 32-bit only (Skype, Google Earth) is not a reason to not use 64-bit. Skype and Google Earth work without any problems on 64-bit.

[Simian Man]

I'd say there are way more 32-bit processors running Linux than 64-bit processors. Not everybody goes to Best Buy to get a new computer every couple years ya know.

[Sorivenul]

Of the four machines I have at home, only one is 64-bit. The other 3 are 32-bit, and were either bought since January or are less than 2 years old.

I personally see a place for 32-bit machines and operating systems for quite some time, especially with the current popularity of netbooks.

[pol666]

Well, when we need more than 4gb of Ram... Perhaps in 2 years, 32bit processors will be not fabricated ever more

[mips]

... 32bit processors will be not fabricated ever more

Hmm, we will revisit this in 5yrs time on a bumber sticker :)

[Tristam Green]

Well, when we need more than 4gb of Ram... Perhaps in 2 years, 32bit processors will be not fabricated ever more

I'll take "Famous Last Words" for $500, Alex!

[gymophett]

Most things are still 32 bit, and not a whole bunch of 64 bit is supported at the moment. In the future, yes, it probably will all be mostly 64 bit, but for right now, no.

[dspari1]

I was trying to google information wheater Ubuntu is shifting more towards 64 bit or stays releasing both 32 and 64 bit versions but I could not find answer.
Wouldn't it be better if Ubuntu would be offered mainly on 64 bit and if there is still need 32 bit could be called "legacy" version or something like that?


I was thinking that 32bit was finally on its way out, but since all the netbooks are using the same 32bit only atom processor(s), it looks like 32bit is going to be here for quite a bit longer.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

Wouldn't it be better if Ubuntu would be offered mainly on 64 bit and if there is still need 32 bit could be called "legacy" version or something like that?
As long as the 32 and 64 bit versions were equally as well kept. A lot of people run Linux on older or underpowered computers. Wouldn't want to alienate those people by becoming just like Windows and increasing the recommended specs with every release and thus forcing people to upgrade their hardware.

Note that 32-bit software also runs on 64-bit Ubuntu, so the fact that some proprietary programs are 32-bit only (Skype, Google Earth) is not a reason to not use 64-bit. Skype and Google Earth work without any problems on 64-bit.
So if I went out and bought a new 64 bit computer today I could install Ubuntu's 64 bit version and wouldn't have any problems running all of the applications that were still 32 bit?

[dspari1]

As long as the 32 and 64 bit versions were equally as well kept. A lot of people run Linux on older or underpowered computers. Wouldn't want to alienate those people by becoming just like Windows and increasing the recommended specs with every release and thus forcing people to upgrade their hardware.

So if I went out and bought a new 64 bit computer today I could install Ubuntu's 64 bit version and wouldn't have any problems running all of the applications that were still 32 bit?

As long as you have drivers for your hardware, you'll be able to run all 32 bit apps.

The previous problem with software was that firefox was 64 bit, and flash and java were 32bit. People either had to downgrade to the 32bit version of Firefox or do some complicated workaround to make it work with the 64 bit version of firefox.

Now that we have both a 64bit version of Flash and Java, there really isn't a problem with firefox anymore.

[MikeTheC]

It's taken a long time just to get to the point we're at right now with 64 bit hardware having what ubiquity it presently has, and most of this is only within the past 2-3 years. As others here have said, there's still tons of hardware out there that's 32 bit, and Linux generally has not been in the habit of abandoning older hardware like other commercial OSs I know have done (or have effectively done by raising their system demands to the point that older hardware is outclassed).

As others have said, 64 bit is pretty useless (or, at least, not as useful) if you have less than 4 GB of RAM. Now that more and more systems are shipping with 4 GB stock, the 64 bit switch-over is going to become more and more necessary, even if most users won't really otherwise benefit from it.

To tell the truth, I kind of hope the Linux devs look into the approach Apple is taking vis a vis making SMP and multi-thread app development easier, and also allowing apps to make use of all the available processors in a box, such as your video card's GPU, etc. Of course, Snow Leopard isn't out yet, so there's no proper way to judge, but I think Linux would benefit from anything that allows it to gain performance gains, especially since it makes sense for Linux to remain competitive against Windows. And what about looking at what Microsoft has done for Win7 with regard to performance and efficiency improvements? Surely there's some lessons to be learned there too, no?

[blueshiftoverwatch]

When running 64 bit Ubuntu will apt-get/synaptic automatically/preferentially download the 64 bit version of XYZ program rather than the 32 bit version if it's available? Or are they listed as different packages?

The previous problem with software was that firefox was 64 bit, and flash and java were 32bit. People either had to downgrade to the 32bit version of Firefox or do some complicated workaround to make it work with the 64 bit version of firefox.

Now that we have both a 64bit version of Flash and Java, there really isn't a problem with firefox anymore.
So using a 64 bit operating system only becomes a problem when your running a 64 bit program that has to directly work with a 32 bit program or vice versa.

and Linux generally has not been in the habit of abandoning older hardware like other commercial OSs I know have done
It seems like Ubuntu abandoned the PowerPC platform pretty quickly after Apple made the switch to Intel processors.

[rick08]

Until 2012! When the mayan calendar ends!!! :o

[Vince4Amy]

When running 64 bit Ubuntu will apt-get/synaptic automatically/preferentially download the 64 bit version of XYZ program rather than the 32 bit version if it's available? Or are they listed as different packages?

Almost all the apps in Ubuntu have 64 bit versions, the only experiences I have which are still 32bit is ZSNES which never works for me on x64 Ubuntu (But does on x64 Fedora).

[MikeTheC]

It seems like Ubuntu abandoned the PowerPC platform pretty quickly after Apple made the switch to Intel processors.

While that's true, it's not like Apple has been that forthcoming about a lot of their specs, and so development of what I'd consider many critical things (3D acceleration, full use of sound, wireless, etc.) all lagged and stalled out of their own accord. Ubuntu's PPC releases were not a-typically "behind" anyone elses' with regard to hardware support. The fact that they decided to abandon support in current releases was simply the logical conclusion of having a hardware group that was needlessly hard to support, used by a minority of computer users, which was being abandoned by the main company making end-user systems.

Were I in Mark's position, I would have abandoned it, too.

[dspari1]

When running 64 bit Ubuntu will apt-get/synaptic automatically/preferentially download the 64 bit version of XYZ program rather than the 32 bit version if it's available? Or are they listed as different packages?

So using a 64 bit operating system only becomes a problem when your running a 64 bit program that has to directly work with a 32 bit program or vice versa.

That is correct on everything you asked and said.

Yes on synaptic will automatically prefer the 64 bit version of everything.
Yes on on 64bit apps working directly with 32bit apps.

[Bruce M.]

I'll take "Famous Last Words" for $500, Alex!

This person once said: "640K is enough for all our computing needs"?

Who is... ?
1. Jef Raskin
2. Linus Torvalds
3. Bill Gates
4. Will Smith

time is running . . . . .

What about the people that have 64bit processors and "choose" to run 32bit Ubuntu?

[mips]

This person once said: "640K is enough for all our computing needs"?

Who is... ?
1. Jef Raskin
2. Linus Torvalds
3. Bill Gates
4. Will Smith

time is running . . . . .


Uhm, Bill Gates never actually said that, just for the record. It's falsely attributed to him.

[dspari1]

Almost all the apps in Ubuntu have 64 bit versions, the only experiences I have which are still 32bit is ZSNES which never works for me on x64 Ubuntu (But does on x64 Fedora).

That's strange, zsnes seems to be working fine for me on Kubuntu 64bit. Although the sound is a little scratchy. It could be my sound card though.


Attached is a screen shot.

[djsephiroth]

Well, when we need more than 4gb of Ram...
... we'll use RAMdisks. ;)

Perhaps in 2 years, 32bit processors will be not fabricated ever more
Radio, home taping, etc.

[swoll1980]

Like myself there is a huge number of people that don't even have 64 bit processors yet. It will be a while before they give up on 32 bit, and while 64 bit is downward compatible, 32 is not upward compatible, so it would make little sense to give up on it now.

[mips]

Almost all the apps in Ubuntu have 64 bit versions, the only experiences I have which are still 32bit is ZSNES which never works for me on x64 Ubuntu (But does on x64 Fedora).

http://board.zsnes.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11513
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=588744

[jerrrys]

32 vs 64, i usally stay away from this kind of conversation, mainly because its endless, however..

face it 64bitters, we live in a 32 bit world. will it change? no..

why? just not enough of a change in speed to make it worth it..

got to go to 128 or +..

or got to rewrite programming as we know it..

now that i properly started a flame war, i will move on to next post..

[init1]

Well I think distros will have 32 bit versions availible for a long time. There are people who still use Windows 98. I'm sure there will still be plenty of people using 32 bit 10 years from now, especially since 32 bit computers are still being manufactured. That said, the main distros will probably make 64 the default in 10 years, maybe a little sooner.

[Sunflower1970]

All my computers are 32bit. Won't be getting anything newer for a long time to come. I'd hope that Ubuntu doesn't give up the 32 bit platform any time soon....(or ever, really...)

[WatchingThePain]

I'm on 64-bit Ibex but unless the software is optimized for 64 bit I dunno if you'd notice the difference.
You want faster???
Buy loads of Sony ps3's then using the chips build your own supercomputer, then let me borrow it to run some tests;).

[Muffinabus]

I can't see myself switching to 64 bit any time soon. I'm still using a 5 year old Pentium 4 processor, but even if I did have a compatible CPU, I would still be running 32 bit.

[thegreenblob]

Almost all the apps in Ubuntu have 64 bit versions, the only experiences I have which are still 32bit is ZSNES which never works for me on x64 Ubuntu (But does on x64 Fedora).

Strange, it works just fine on my 64 bit system. (also with no sound issues)

But about the 32 bit being abandoned... I don't think that will happen anytime soon. The majority of people I know still use a 32 bit system as their main machine. I also had a 32 bit system as my main machine until 2 months ago. And I might also add, I still have 2 32 bit machines still running. :P

So, I really don't think this will happen anytime soon as a lot of people still use 32 bit machines. Maybe in a few years after most people replace their machines with newer ones.

[jespdj]

Most things are still 32 bit, and not a whole bunch of 64 bit is supported at the moment. In the future, yes, it probably will all be mostly 64 bit, but for right now, no.
Wrong. Everything in the 64-bit Ubuntu repository is native 64-bit programs.

The only 32-bit programs that I have on my system are Skype and Google Earth (both proprietary software, for which the developers are too lazy to compile a 64-bit version).

[jerrrys]

Wrong. Everything in the 64-bit Ubuntu repository is native 64-bit programs.

The only 32-bit programs that I have on my system are Skype and Google Earth (both proprietary software, for which the developers are too lazy to compile a 64-bit version).

i didnt know this, however..

linux is in the less then 1% of the world of things..where does that put you..and 64bit complied? isnt that 32bit..not saying this to be argumentative, just trying to understand

[jimi_hendrix]

32-bit dies in 2038

[jerrrys]

32-bit dies in 2038

REALLY; how figure?

[pol666]

I'll take "Famous Last Words" for $500, Alex!


I don't know, will be not just 2 years, maybe 3, 4, but 32bit architecture has counted the days

[jimi_hendrix]

REALLY; how figure?

it has to do with how much a 32-bit int can hold

[jerrrys]

commodore 64

[jimi_hendrix]

commodore 64

nintendo 64!

[jerrrys]

I was trying to google information wheater Ubuntu is shifting more towards 64 bit or stays releasing both 32 and 64 bit versions but I could not find answer.
Wouldn't it be better if Ubuntu would be offered mainly on 64 bit and if there is still need 32 bit could be called "legacy" version or something like that?

the op

[Skripka]

NO!

If it does happen, right now would be too early.

Well...a good start would be Ubuntu welcoming 1995. I mean SRSLY-does ANYONE bother trying to run Ubuntu on an i386 or 486 chip? Why does Canonical even bother compiling for 486 when Ubuntu won't even run on anything clocked at 50-100mHz???? Heck I don't even think anyone would honestly run Ubuntu Intrepid or Hardy on an i586 (Pentium) machine.

[WatchingThePain]

32-bit dies in 2038

Lol so sadly will some people in the forum by that time.

[mips]

Well...a good start would be Ubuntu welcoming 1995. I mean SRSLY-does ANYONE bother trying to run Ubuntu on an i386 or 486 chip? Why does Canonical even bother compiling for 486 when Ubuntu won't even run on anything clocked at 50-100mHz???? Heck I don't even think anyone would honestly run Ubuntu Intrepid or Hardy on an i586 (Pentium) machine.


Good point. They should just compile for i686 & up.

[jimi_hendrix]

here we go

Y2K38 Bug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem)

[SunnyRabbiera]

I'd say there are way more 32-bit processors running Linux than 64-bit processors. Not everybody goes to Best Buy to get a new computer every couple years ya know.

Or has the resources in this troubled economy


Well...a good start would be Ubuntu welcoming 1995. I mean SRSLY-does ANYONE bother trying to run Ubuntu on an i386 or 486 chip? Why does Canonical even bother compiling for 486 when Ubuntu won't even run on anything clocked at 50-100mHz???? Heck I don't even think anyone would honestly run Ubuntu Intrepid or Hardy on an i586 (Pentium) machine.

Good point. They should just compile for i686 & up.

Scuse me but I own many machines that are i386 based at least in architecture, should I be forced to get a new computer to satisfy you?
The x86 architecture is still around because people still own older intel chips.
The architecture isnt there to actually work on those older processors but when your chip is similar to a x86 chip then you see why its still around.
My chip is in the 1586 arch range.
Plus many people can still run a stripped down version of buntu on those older chips.

[mips]

Scuse me but I own many machines that are i386 based at least in architecture, should I be forced to get a new computer to satisfy you?
The x86 architecture is still around because people still own older intel chips.
The architecture isnt there to actually work on those older processors but when your chip is similar to a x86 chip then you see why its still around.
My chip is in the 1586 arch range.
Plus many people can still run a stripped down version of buntu on those older chips.


Does anyone (including yourself) actually run Ubuntu on a Pentium or lower?

Although a 80386 is a x86 processor Ubuntu will NOT run on it at all.

i686 has nothing to do with 64bit, it basically means PII and up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_P6

.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I run a Pentium 4, from what I understand its architecture is x86 based.
The 32bit version is targeted at x86 like systems.
As far as I know Ubuntu can run on systems as low as a PIII, some have reported fair success with them.
I am talking about ARCHITECTURE here, not the actual processors.
What do I have to use a Dual core for you or something to use ubuntu?
Ubuntu and other linuxs seem to recognize my architecture as i386

[mips]

I run a Pentium 4, from what I understand its architecture is x86 based.
The 32bit version is targeted at x86 like systems.
As far as I know Ubuntu can run on systems as low as a PIII, some have reported fair success with them.
I am talking about ARCHITECTURE here, not the actual processors.
What do I have to use a Dual core for you or something to use ubuntu?

I think you are STILL missing the point I made or simply refuse to read/comprehend what I wrote.

I said they should only compile for i686 and newer.
This does not exclude any of your processors or even the PIII you mentioned others use.
i686 compilation will even work on a PII.


Bit of background.
x86 actually defines anything from a 8086 (16bit) to current 32 bit cpus like the Intel Core Solo, Core Duo and Atom.
i386 is a 32bit x86 architecture
i686 is a 32bit x86 architecture

I never said anything about dropping support for x86 or 32bit cpus, I said drop support for Pentium 1 and lower processor (i586, i486, i386, >).

[Bruce M.]

Uhm, Bill Gates never actually said that, just for the record. It's falsely attributed to him.

But it was still a good question. :)

Besaides, just maybe it was Will Smith in an "I Robot" scene that ended up on the cutting room floor. :)

And I had a C-64. Were they really 64bit?

I think not they had 64K of RAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64)!

Bet Nintendo falls under the same ... RAM!

Just so people know:
From July 2007 until 6 month ago I was running Ubuntu and Xubuntu on a P-III @ 800GHtz - 256MB RAM quite nicely thank you. It ran a heck of a lot better than my W2K that I ditched for Ubuntu.

Have a nice day.
Bruce

[mips]

But it was still a good question. :)

Besaides, just maybe it was Will Smith in an "I Robot" scene that ended up on the cutting room floor. :)

And I had a C-64. Were they really 64bit?

I think not they had 64K of RAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_64)!

Bet Nintendo falls under the same ... RAM!

Have a nice day.
Bruce

Yes, the commodore had 64kB of ram.

The N64 or Nintendo 64 actually does have a 64bit cpu.

[Bruce M.]

Yes, the commodore had 64kB of ram.

The N64 or Nintendo 64 actually does have a 64bit cpu.

Oops! Oh well, half right is better than all wrong. :)

[Grant A.]

64 bit programs and operating systems cannot run on 32bit processors, so until 32 bit goes the way of 16 bit, we probably won't see 64 bit only distributions for a while.

I could see hybrid architecture kernels in the near future, though.

[Skripka]

Bet Nintendo falls under the same ... RAM!

Just so people know:
From July 2007 until 6 month ago I was running Ubuntu and Xubuntu on a P-III @ 800GHtz - 256MB RAM quite nicely thank you. It ran a heck of a lot better than my W2K that I ditched for Ubuntu.

Have a nice day.
Bruce

A PIII @ 800mHz, is at least 4 years older than the original Pentium (i586) I was talking about, which had a frequency cieling of a mere 300mHz. A PIII meets the min requirements posted by Canonical to run Ubuntu-only the mid-model Pentium IIs and older meet the bare minimum --ergo why does Canonical compile Ubuntu for an architecture which it will clearly not run on (386/486), by their own admission?

[insane_alien]

as long as 32-bit processor computers are still common in the wild then there will be 32-bit distros. and those 32-bit distros won't disappear either, development on them may slow down to the point where it is restricted to ports of software for other architectures but thats it.

[jespdj]

And I had a C-64. Were they really 64bit?
Ofcourse not, the processor in the Commodore 64 was an 1 MHz MOS 6510, with only three 8-bit general-purpose registers (A, X and Y) and with a 16-bit address bus (that's why it could address 64 KB = 2^16 = 65,536 bytes).

[Kareeser]

Netbooks have breathed life into the 32-bit and "small form factor" computer industry, where none existed before.

Think about it. Microsoft was so threatened by the netbook that they extended support for Windows XP for two years because Windows Vista ran terribly on netbooks.

However, if intel released a 64-bit atom processor (not sure about the feasibility of that), then all bets are off :)

[wmcbrine]

I have a 64-bit system so old (Athlon 64 3200+, socket 754), it's gonna need replacing soon. On the other hand, I also have a 32-bit system I just got (Atom N270). So who knows?

[Bruce M.]

I wonder if I'll live long enough to see the 128bit systems?

:popcorn:
Dateline April 1, 2525: Linux-Intel Corp, announced today, the release of it new 256bit LI 16x-Core processor with the Linux Kernel built in. They have announced that this chip will be installed free on all of there new Linux-Intel motherboards for the asking. The Linux-Intel motherboards however will continue to sell without a chip for $10.95.
:popcorn:
Oh a dream!

OK, back on topic, personally I think the 32bit processors will be around for a LONG time yet, microwave ovens, the computer chips in cars, DVD players being a few examples.

[djsephiroth]

Good point. They should just compile for i686 & up.
I concur. While it's all well and good that we can "run" *Ubuntu on those dinosaurs, it will never really run on them. Who is even using a 586 or less anyway, much less with a fully-featured DE?


OK, back on topic, personally I think the 32bit processors will be around for a LONG time yet, microwave ovens, the computer chips in cars, DVD players being a few examples.
Very good point. Not everything with a 32-bit CPU is a desktop system.

[Bruce M.]

Very good point. Not everything with a 32-bit CPU is a desktop system.

Well, I understand that it's not really part of the question as the OP was referring to Desk/Laptops but still, it does make one wonder.

I'll bet there are still 8088's or 80286's out there still in use in some form or another.