what's wrong with the 64 bit edition ?

[Hagar55]

When you go to the Ubuntu homepage and hit the download button, you get the 32 bit edition standard and it has recommended next to it....the 64 bit edition doesn't.....so what's wrong with the 64 bit edition ?

[Queue29]

I wish they would change the label not because I think it's the right thing to do, but rather so that people will stop making these threads.

[efflandt]

I heard that for awhile there was a more daunting message saying that 64-bit was "not recommended". At least they toned that down. There is nothing wrong with 64-bit, other than possibly some rare programs that are only available in 32-bit.

64-bit is best if you have more than 3 GB RAM, although, in 32-bit there is an optional pae kernel that can address more then 3 GB RAM.

The only thing I know of that is normally 32-bit is flashplugin-installer, which for 64-bit is 32-bit flash with nswrapper to run it in 64-bit. Real 64-bit flash was available, then it wasn't, now it is available again. Real 64-bit flash does not work with my early Athlon64 3200+ (2 GHz, 1024K cache) from 2004 because that cpu lacked the lahf_lm instruction used by 64-bit flash. Someone did come up with a lahf-fix plugin that allowed it to work with Firefox automatically, but 64-bit Hulu Desktop was unaware of the extra lahf-fix plugin. But real 64-bit flash works fine with duel core laptops from 2006 or new desktop I bought this year.

[Hagar55]

Since I have an new laptop with P8600 I think I'll try the 64 bit edition this time.