Which one?

[racingronnie]

I have been running Ubuntu for several years now and love it. I just bought a new computer:

Acer Aspire REVO R3610-U9022
Ultra-slim desktop
- 1 x Atom 330 / 1.6 GHz
- RAM 2 GB
- HDD 1 x 160 GB
- NVIDIA ION
- Gigabit Ethernet
- WLAN : 802.11b/g/n (draft)
- Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

I am going to remove Windows7 and put Ubuntu on it. I thought I wanted to run a 64bit version of 9.10. Has anyone tried this with any luck? Or, which Ubuntu OS would probably run the best on this hardware?

Thank you,
RacingRonnie

[iamwhatiseem]

I have been running Ubuntu for several years now and love it. I just bought a new computer:

Acer Aspire REVO R3610-U9022
Ultra-slim desktop
- 1 x Atom 330 / 1.6 GHz
- RAM 2 GB
- HDD 1 x 160 GB
- NVIDIA ION
- Gigabit Ethernet
- WLAN : 802.11b/g/n (draft)
- Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit

I am going to remove Windows7 and put Ubuntu on it. I thought I wanted to run a 64bit version of 9.10. Has anyone tried this with any luck? Or, which Ubuntu OS would probably run the best on this hardware?

Thank you,
RacingRonnie

umm...why buy one with Windows installed...just to replace it?
Seriously....you can buy a decent system pre-installed with ubuntu for $399...or buy a "O's- less" system for $250 or so.
You paid the gates tax.

[racingronnie]

Because this one only cost me $328 and I couldn't find a comparable product pre-installed with Ubuntu. If they are going to give me their trashy OS so cheap... I can afford to throw it away!

I guess what I am really asking is: Is it a good idea to install this with 64bit Ubuntu or will 32bit work better in the long run? My first thought is that 64bit Ubuntu would probably utilize the computer better, but I know that tried and true practices tell a better story. I just want the opinion of someone who has already been down this path.

Sorry to rant... but I have noticed that some people would like to cut down a forum participant rather than try to answer the question. I would rather you not respond unless you have something more constructive to say.

[JPWhite]

One thing Win7 has over Ubuntu is better backward compatibility with 32-bit apps on the 64-bit platform. Until recently 64-bit Ubuntu didn't have a functional version of flash (it does now however :-)

Be sure to check that the applications and hardware drivers you wish to use work with 64-bit Ubuntu. If so then I would chose the 64-bit over the 32-bit.

In the fullness of time 64-bit Ubuntu will be equally supported as 32-bit. 64-bit is more 'future proof' and of course takes advantage of the hardware capabilities. Just check to be sure that the 'future is now' for you and your software needs.

[racingronnie]

JPWhite

Thank you for your inputs. Sounds like excellent advice. If I choose to install the 64bit, I only see AMD64 at the end of the iso name. This will work with the ATOM processor?

[JPWhite]

JPWhite

Thank you for your inputs. Sounds like excellent advice. If I choose to install the 64bit, I only see AMD64 at the end of the iso name. This will work with the ATOM processor?

Yes the file works with both AMD and Intel 64-bit processors.

[kyteflyer]

I bought an eeePC netbook from Asus. I chose to replace the cripple Windows 7 Starter with Ubuntu 9.10 32 bit. It flies. (Atom N270, not the fastest by any means)

[iamwhatiseem]

I tried 64 bit, but switched back to 32.
Too buggy, some programs froze the whole system...no keyboard..nothing.
I have raaarely seen that with Linux before.
This was only a few months ago...so for what it's worth.