What type of Processor and OS do you run?

[Kilz]

Hi Everyone
Would you please take part in this poll? I have been wondering about what the most common setup is and what the next one will be.

If you chose "I have a 32bit system - my next one will be 32bit" would you please post why you want another 32 bit system?

If you have both 64 and 32 bit installed please vote for the one you consider your main desktop. Please don't vote for testing, trial, or a OS you have installed to help answer questions.

Thanks Kilz

[K.Mandla]

I'm willing to try a 64-bit, provided I move away from recycled P4 computers and back to paid-for machines. :) Give me a year. ....

[G Morgan]

32 bit AMD personally.

[PatrickMay16]

I have a AMD Athlon 64 processor, but I looked at people's experiences with the 64bit version of ubuntu, all that chrooting junk and such, and though "ah heck" and just installed the i386 version.

[djheadley]

Until I win the lottery or some generous person donates a newer computer to me, I'm stuck with a 433mhz Celeron Mendicino, but I can dream, can't I? :D

[Kilz]

32 bit AMD personally.
They still make a 32 bit processor?

[Kimm]

They dont still have to make 32 bit CPUs for someone to have one ;P
My friend is running my old computer, a 1.6 GHz AMD Athlon XP, 32-bit. Its still a fine piece of machinery.

Edit: I'm running a 1.7 GHz Intel Celeron (32-bit), my next machine will be 64-bit

[bruce89]

They still make a 32 bit processor?
They used to, people can have a processor they no longer make anymore you know. For instance they no longer make my particular one, they added SSE3 support. (Athlon 64 3200+).

I am running Ubuntu AMD64. I don't need any of that i386 only stuff, Google Earth works perfectly.

[Dragonbite]

I've got a 32 bit system because I got it when a company/client for a guy I was working with decided they didn't want it anymore!

Oh well, found it to be 2x the power of my then-current system (It's a 1GHz compared to my 500MHz previous system I bought in 2000).

Honestly, it could be whatever I come across next though some of the 64 Turion laptops look mighty nice!!

Only thing is whether or not the apps I use will be working well under 64bit by the time I come around to a new system.

[nuvo]

32bit 2.53Ghz Intel Celeron D unfortunately.
I'd much prefer a more recent AMD CPU since I'm not using a laptop, which is the only place I'd rather have an Intel CPU (and then it'd be a Core Duo).
My next system might be a 64bit system, but it depends on when I next upgrade my main board and CPU as I don't just buy a whole new system if I don't need to and for what I do, this one works pretty well (needs more than 256Mb of RAM though really).

[curuxz]

What are the celerons like now, because last time i used one it was a peice of ****, but then im talking things like the 700 celeron back when it probs should not have even shipped.

There seem to be quite a few people using them, im wondering are they better now?

PS: im not having a go at anyones pc i am just intrested.

[nuvo]

I can't say I've had any problems with mine, but Celerons still don't really match up to Pentiums and such.
If you're looking for something you can tune, Celerons aren't worth bothering with and they aren't really aimed at gaming or other CPU intensive tasks.
Celerons are aimed more at home PC's that are commonly used for web browsing and file editing tasks.

[~Mi]

AMD Athalon, Ubuntu 32bit for Flash and codecs etc... But it does seem hard to set up... you should have a "missing something AND hard toi set up" option, lol ^^;;

[bruce89]

AMD Athalon, Ubuntu 32bit for Flash and codecs etc... But it does seem hard to set up... you should have a "missing something AND hard toi set up" option, lol ^^;;
It's even harder for 64-bit, that is what those options were for, 32-bit becuase 64-bit is too...

[Kimm]

My Celeron (1.7 GHz) is OK. But my old computer (1.6 GHz AMD Athlon) kicked its butt!
My Next computer will most defenently have an AMD CPU... from experiance, I can tell you this: they kick ***!

[curuxz]

My Celeron (1.7 GHz) is OK. But my old computer (1.6 GHz AMD Athlon) kicked its butt!
My Next computer will most defenently have an AMD CPU... from experiance, I can tell you this: they kick ***!

Yea i have an AMD 64bit 3200+ they do kick A

[Wolki]

If you chose "I have a 32bit system - my next one will be 32bit" would you please post why you want another 32 bit system?

Because i plan to get a laptop next, and I'm thinking used P2 rather than expensive new 64-bit. ^^;;

Should I buy a new desktop, I might get a 64bit, but I'm not sure... I'm pretty happy with what I have right now, so maybe I'll just get a cheap new board/cpu when I have some money left.

[Skye]

I have an Athlon 64 3500+ in my desktop, but my first experience with 64 bit was using Hoary's AMD 64 version, and that wasn't very good at all. Maybe it's worth another shot now that it's matured a bit. These AMD 64's are wonderful chips, though, there's no denying that.

[John.Michael.Kane]

64bit Amd. Running 32 bit,and 64bit OS

[joe_lace]

P4 3E GHz with Hyperthreading, 32 bit OS.

[G Morgan]

They still make a 32 bit processor?

They were still in circulation when I bought this in september. Sempron 3000+ and yes I've check and it is the 32 bit version rather than the 64 bit unfortunately.

I'm relatively happy with this chip. In XP land it runs Oblivion and X3 without too much drama and there aren't any more resource intensive games currently.

//edit - I've always found AMD perform above specification anyway.//

[ozak]

Intel PIII class xeons.
32 bit, but my next will be 64.
By the time I'm ready to upgrade, it would be stupid not to.

[Kilz]

They were still in circulation when I bought this in september. Sempron 3000+ and yes I've check and it is the 32 bit version rather than the 64 bit unfortunately.

I'm relatively happy with this chip. In XP land it runs Oblivion and X3 without too much drama and there aren't any more resource intensive games currently.

//edit - I've always found AMD perform above specification anyway.//

I was just surprised that there are still 32 bit AMD possessors for sale. AMD has kind of lead the way over Intel into 64 bit computing for average people. I don't think they make them any more.

[angkor]

Hm, I can't vote. I have a 64bit proc and I've got both 32bit and 64bit ubuntu installed.

[Kilz]

Hm, I can't vote. I have a 64bit proc and I've got both 32bit and 64bit ubuntu installed.
If you have both installed please vote for the one you use more. I will change the first post to mention that.

[paul cooke]

2.4 GHz celeron D with 1 gig ram and nvidia fx5500 is my fast machine, the others are rescued clunkers and a 1.5 GHz celeron based laptop.

My next machine, whenever I get the spare dosh for it and other things don't take my eye (like new sails for my boat), will be a twin core 64 bit beast

[angkor]

If you have both installed please vote for the one you use more. I will change the first post to mention that.

ok, I have voted for the second option reluctantly. There's nothing really missing from 64bit ubuntu (other than lack of documentation compared to 32bit), but it's not hard to set up at all.

I use my 64bit install as a test bed for xgl and other experimental software. I use my 32bit as default cause there's not much difference in performance although ubtuntu 64 does feel a bit more responsive.

[Kilz]

ok, I have voted for the second option reluctantly. There's nothing really missing from 64bit ubuntu (other than lack of documentation compared to 32bit), but it's not hard to set up at all.

I use my 64bit install as a test bed for xgl and other experimental software. I use my 32bit as default cause there's not much difference in performance although ubtuntu 64 does feel a bit more responsive.
Thanks thats exactly wat I want, the os you use the most if you have both. I changed the first post to ask people not to vote for test, trial, or helping installs.

[Ubunted]

I wanted my next machine to be 64-bit but that Core Duo laptop was too tempting to pass up.

[Kilz]

I wanted my next machine to be 64-bit but that Core Duo laptop was too tempting to pass up.
Yes sometimes a good deal is hard to pass up. But I wonder if they make amd64 x2 processors yet? That way you could have 64 bit and duel core.

[masterjonny]

My "good" pc is a 32 bit pent 4, and my other one is a 32 bit pent 3....I think I will upgrade to 64 bit, but not until AMD have sorted there new socket out. The AM2 will apparently suport all proccessors from the FX series right down too the Sempron's, making all the current sockets redundant, would seem a bit foolish to invest in a new mobo then in a few months time its no good ;)

[Kilz]

My "good" pc is a 32 bit pent 4, and my other one is a 32 bit pent 3....I think I will upgrade to 64 bit, but not until AMD have sorted there new socket out. The AM2 will apparently suport all proccessors from the FX series right down too the Sempron's, making all the current sockets redundant, would seem a bit foolish to invest in a new mobo then in a few months time its no good ;)
The first AM2 socket was released on May 23, 2006.

[fluffington]

Why isn't "I'm running 64-bit now, but will switch to 32-bit in the future" an option? 'Cause I'd pick it if it was.

[Lil_Eagle]

I have an Athlon 3400+ and I run the 64-bit version of Kubuntu (on top of Ubuntu). The 32-bit version doesn't work well on this computer due to a bug in the processor.

I was stupid and bought a Compaq Presario rather than building my own system because it was cheaper to buy it than to build one. You can be assured that this computer will go to the kids and I will build my next one. What will it be?

I will build an AMD64 X2 (Yes, they do make them). I can't guess at the speed of the CPU, because depending on when I buy it, new chips may have already been released. Since I now have experience with Ubuntu, I have a much better understanding of which hardware to choose.

It preturbs me that the 32-bit versions of Linux have problems with this computer. I suspect it is kernel related, but didn't spend a lot of time trying to debug it because the 64-bit version works fine. The only thing I miss is flash, and since flash usually just annoies me, it isn't a big deal.

[Kilz]

Why isn't "I'm running 64-bit now, but will switch to 32-bit in the future" an option? 'Cause I'd pick it if it was.
Why would you chose to go back to 32 bit? Is something missing from the 64bit? Is it to hard to setup? If you answer yes to either of those questions feel free to vote that you are running a 32bit because something is missing, or its to hard to setup.

[Kilz]

I have an Athlon 3400+ and I run the 64-bit version of Kubuntu (on top of Ubuntu). The 32-bit version doesn't work well on this computer due to a bug in the processor.

I was stupid and bought a Compaq Presario rather than building my own system because it was cheaper to buy it than to build one. You can be assured that this computer will go to the kids and I will build my next one. What will it be?

I will build an AMD64 X2 (Yes, they do make them). I can't guess at the speed of the CPU, because depending on when I buy it, new chips may have already been released. Since I now have experience with Ubuntu, I have a much better understanding of which hardware to choose.

It preturbs me that the 32-bit versions of Linux have problems with this computer. I suspect it is kernel related, but didn't spend a lot of time trying to debug it because the 64-bit version works fine. The only thing I miss is flash, and since flash usually just annoies me, it isn't a big deal.
for your post I wish I would have added a 64bit system - 64bit OS I tried a 32bit OS but it didn't work on my system.
If you would like flash and other 32 bit plugins to work. I have a howto on how to setup 32 bit firefox with plugins on amd64. (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1174435)

[Kilz]

Anyone else want to take the poll?

[fluffington]

Why would you chose to go back to 32 bit? Is something missing from the 64bit?

It's missing Flash, Wine, and some codecs (I realize I can set up Wine on 64-bit manually, but it's not easy or terribly stable). 64-bit requires twice the amount of RAM and disc space for a lot of things as 32-bit does. Compiling code to run on most other machines is easier when you're using the same architecture as everybody else. 32-bit has better driver support (not an issue on my current box, but it has been on others I've worked with).


Is it to hard to setup?

The only difference I've evern seen between setup on 32-bit and 64-bit is which flag I have to pass to the compiler for a driver (for a network card that has since been replaced).


If you answer yes to either of those questions feel free to vote that you are running a 32bit because something is missing, or its to hard to setup.

Too late, already voted for using 64-bit.

[brentoboy]

64bit is missing stuff - you cant use win32 codecs, and LTSP (edubuntu) is a hassle if your sever is 64 bit and your clients are 32 bit.

on a somwhat related subject, 64bit ubuntu is IMHO about 95% of what Ubuntu 32 bit is, which is funny, becuase XP64 is about 35% of XP32. In the windows world, to migrate from 64 to 32, you have to talk the original dev's to spend time rewriting stuff. No one wants to. When I test drove xp64, I couldnt even use my printer, because it's driver was only 32 bit. Ms wasnt even nice enough to emulate a 32 bit environment in order to use "old" printers. printer drivers arent exactly kernel modules like other drivers, they just want to force users to call and complain to the HW manufactures for not supporting them.

anyway, there's my rant.
the only diff I see between 32 bit and 64 bit ubuntu is the 32 bit code has a much larger userbase, and is therefore more mature as more bugs have been reported and fixed.

[Kilz]

64bit is missing stuff - you cant use win32 codecs, and LTSP (edubuntu) is a hassle if your sever is 64 bit and your clients are 32 bit.

on a somwhat related subject, 64bit ubuntu is IMHO about 95% of what Ubuntu 32 bit is, which is funny, becuase XP64 is about 35% of XP32. In the windows world, to migrate from 64 to 32, you have to talk the original dev's to spend time rewriting stuff. No one wants to. When I test drove xp64, I couldnt even use my printer, because it's driver was only 32 bit. Ms wasnt even nice enough to emulate a 32 bit environment in order to use "old" printers. printer drivers arent exactly kernel modules like other drivers, they just want to force users to call and complain to the HW manufactures for not supporting them.

anyway, there's my rant.
the only diff I see between 32 bit and 64 bit ubuntu is the 32 bit code has a much larger userbase, and is therefore more mature as more bugs have been reported and fixed.
What this poll is showing me is it may be larger, but not that much. The reason I say not much you may ask? Because 64bit system owners are being counted as 32bit users because they use a 32bit OS. This is because they need something that's easily available in the 32bit version.
Also if people do as they plan within 5-10 years it will be the opposite. This poll is also being used in a discussion in the edgy developers section to ask for muntiarch improvements. This would enable 32bit packages to be easily installed while 64bit application are being developed.

[Kilz]

Lets offer more people the chance to take the poll with a bump. :grin:

[fabertawe]

I've been using the 64bit K8 kernel on an AMD64 3000+ for about a week now. I very nearly reinstalled with 32bit Dapper after a couple of days of trying to set up Firefox plugins but that would have been too easy ;-) Swiftfox and lots of helpful info from forum posts persuaded me otherwise!

I'm really enjoying Ubuntu so far.

Paul

[drizek]

I think the poll shows that multi-arch should wait till edgy+1.

Were all techy here, for everyone else the percentage of 32bit users is probably around 75-80%. There is no major need by anyone to switch to multiarch, not now at least. There are many many more important things to worry about. its not like ubuntu 32bit runs slowly on an amd X2 4800+

[Kilz]

I think the poll shows that multi-arch should wait till edgy+1.

Were all techy here, for everyone else the percentage of 32bit users is probably around 75-80%. There is no major need by anyone to switch to multiarch, not now at least. There are many many more important things to worry about. its not like ubuntu 32bit runs slowly on an amd X2 4800+
I dont think everyone in the cafe is techy. But Linux in general it is more so. You cant count in 32bit system users who use Windoz and will never switch no matter how easy Ubuntu gets. Unfortunatly we are going to have to wait because Debian is slower than slow, and Ubuntu developers want to wait for them. I knind of agree that there is no use in duplicating effort.
What you may be overlooking is that while there are a lot of 32 bit users. More 64bit users are using a 32bit OS because something is missing, or hard to setup(the missing parts no dought because they find them in 32bit) Almost 3 times as many. Yes it dose run more slowly compaired to the same system running a 64bit os using programs written fot 64bit. 30% more slowly in some cases.

But lets take a look at numbers
18 64bit users
45 64bit systems using 32bit
63 total systems

71 32bit systems going to buy 64bit nest
32 32bit systems going to buy 32bit next
103 32bit systems

63 vs 103 isnt that big a diffrence in population of systems, and its changing daily. Also if there was a fantastic multiarch 64bit Ubuntu, or they see a great buy on a 64bit system more of those planing to buy 32bit systems next may change their minds.
But we are stuck waiting on Debain, wasnt that one of the reasons Ubuntu was started in the first place. The insanely slow Debain development prossess?

[Miguel]

Hi guys,

I voted 32 bit goint to 64. But not soon. My pc is a Dell Inspiron 8600 laptop with a 1.7GHz and 2Mb cache Pentium M. It runs nice and all but... I don't like the build quality, the lower right corner of the screen is a bit decoloured and it is a big bad behemoth. ¡Ah! And it has an ATi card.

I plan on buying a Merom laptop (64bit) with the full Santa Rosa platform. This means a year of waiting. Also, if I want to go wireless, I will need to wait a few more months or toss a coin in ndiswrapper. The reason I want 64 bit is to run double precission calculations. These run faster than on a 32 bit system. And finally there is the weight. There is no way I am buying a 15.4 laptop weighing 3 kg (6.6lbs I guess). A 14 inch or 13.3 inch widescreener at 2.0 kg is my target.

BTW: Kliz, why did you say we are wating Debian? I think most of the problems 64 bit people have are related to propietary stuff (flash, codecs, some propietary apps). I don't think this will change much with debian etch.

As a side note, to the 32 bit to 32 bit guys: When are you planning on changing your PC? I say this because Intel is shipping 64 bit Conroe and Woodcrest before the end of this month. Merom will arrive at October or November. Of course, the AMD lineup is all 64 bit right now. Because if you don't buy your computer right now you will have a hard time to buy a 64 bit system.

Have a nice day,

Miguel

[Kilz]

BTW: Kliz, why did you say we are wating Debian? I think most of the problems 64 bit people have are related to propietary stuff (flash, codecs, some propietary apps). I don't think this will change much with debian etch.

Have a nice day,

Miguel

Because they are waiting on Debian to go multiarch. Multiarch would allow people running the amd64 version to open Synaptic, add 32bit repositories, and install 32bit applications or just apt-get them along with 64bit versions just as easily as they add 64bit applications now. It would remove the issue of things not available for 64bit.
Multiarch was mentioned in the original Edgy announcement. But is now not going to be added. The reason is that Debian is just now discussing how to go multiarch. Ubuntu developers must want to wait for Debian to do it first and then add it to Ubuntu.
So in essence Ubuntu is again subject to Debians slow development. 64bit users (of which I am one) are left to hang on usability issues while eye candy is added to the 32bit version.

[mips]

As a side note, to the 32 bit to 32 bit guys: When are you planning on changing your PC? I say this because Intel is shipping 64 bit Conroe and Woodcrest before the end of this month. Merom will arrive at October or November. Of course, the AMD lineup is all 64 bit right now. Because if you don't buy your computer right now you will have a hard time to buy a 64 bit system.


Second hand maybe ?

[OffHand]

I have a AMD Athlon 64 processor, but I looked at people's experiences with the 64bit version of ubuntu, all that chrooting junk and such, and though "ah heck" and just installed the i386 version.
haha I can copy this. I just couldn't be arsed. My rig is fast enough anyways with the K7 kernel.

[bruce89]

haha I can copy this. I just couldn't be arsed. My rig is fast enough anyways with the K7 kernel.
I couldn't be arsed to be arsed. I installed the AMD64 one, as I don't need any of that stuff.

I heard somewhere that Multiarch may take up to Edgy+3.

[drizek]

instead of multiarch, wouldnt it just be better to wait and have a pure 64bit system in a couple years?

[bruce89]

instead of multiarch, wouldnt it just be better to wait and have a pure 64bit system in a couple years?
That would be the ideal solution, athough some things can't be 64-bit. 3rd party things usually aren't (Opera, Flash etc.) and dodgy codecs. free software can be made to be AMD64 easily though.

[Kilz]

I couldn't be arsed to be arsed. I installed the AMD64 one, as I don't need any of that stuff.

I heard somewhere that Multiarch may take up to Edgy+3.
Lets all hope that it doesnt take that long. Other distro's are already multiarch, Debian/Ubuntu hasnt even started it. Edgy +3 would be about 2 years away. Thats pure plain sad.

[mips]

... free software can be made to be AMD64 easily though.


It's not as simple as just compiling for 64bit. If that were the case then most packages and stuff would probably be available for 64bit by now.

[bruce89]

It's not as simple as just compiling for 64bit. If that were the case then most packages and stuff would probably be available for 64bit by now.
There already is lots of software available for AMD64. If you mean not in the repositiories, then yes, there is little support. This is becuase 64 bit Linux is not very widespread.

All the packages that are not on the AMD64 version are not free software (Flash, Skype, (Opera?), w32codecs). Again these are not available as 64-bit becuase 64 bit Linux is not very widespread.

Making a 64-bit version is (if the code is clean) simply recompiling it for the AMD64 architecture. OO.o is not 64-bit, as the code is not well written, and is not portable. There is work underway to fix this.

[Adam4491]

AMD 64
ubuntu 64

[Kilz]

There already is lots of software available for AMD64. If you mean not in the repositiories, then yes, there is little support. This is becuase 64 bit Linux is not very widespread.

All the packages that are not on the AMD64 version are not free software (Flash, Skype, (Opera?), w32codecs). Again these are not available as 64-bit becuase 64 bit Linux is not very widespread.

Making a 64-bit version is (if the code is clean) simply recompiling it for the AMD64 architecture. OO.o is not 64-bit, as the code is not well written, and is not portable. There is work underway to fix this.

There will always be something that isn't available in a 64bit version. Multiarch could solve a lot of problems for the next 5-10 years while everything is getting ported to 64bit or becomes outdated.

[w_r_cromwell]

The poll 'choices' don't fit here. I have everything from 400 MHz to 2.5 Ghz including various Intel and AMD processors...all 32 bit. I am retiring most of the slower PCs and donating them to kids as fodder for their experiments. Note the older computers will still do an admirable job running linux where new MS operating systems refuse to install.

I won't be spending an money on 64 bit computers as the present batch are doing everything I need. I am also working to get the rest of my family off Microsoft's crap systems and that is coming along well. They are so tired of crashes and failures and viruses and.....

Bill

[Kilz]

The poll 'choices' don't fit here. I have everything from 400 MHz to 2.5 Ghz including various Intel and AMD processors...all 32 bit. I am retiring most of the slower PCs and donating them to kids as fodder for their experiments. Note the older computers will still do an admirable job running linux where new MS operating systems refuse to install.

I won't be spending an money on 64 bit computers as the present batch are doing everything I need. I am also working to get the rest of my family off Microsoft's crap systems and that is coming along well. They are so tired of crashes and failures and viruses and.....

Bill
I understand. I wish I could add a few more options to the poll, but once its up you cant. In your case you are a "32bit system - I'm not sure what my next one will be" maybe because you haven't thought about it, or cash isn't available for dreams of the next computer.
But if the money was available, and you were shopping for the next system, what would you buy. A 32bit one or a 64 bit one?

[Armanisc]

64bit system
64bit OS

[bufsabre666]

i always like when someone bumps somthing 2 years

[gn2]

i always like when someone bumps somthing 2 years

It would be interesting to compare this 2006 poll with what the situation is now though.

Maybe a moderator could close this poll and post a duplicate, so that a comparison could be made?

[scouser73]

Intel Celeron D 2.8Ghz running Ubuntu 8.04.

[FFighter]

I was pretty excited about this 64bit talk when I bought my new C2D laptop... however, it just ended up to be too much hassle.

32bits is still the most practical way to go, and it works out of the box. Besides, there's not any valuable performance gain from using 64bit OSes, since the main applications are still 32bits.

So, in order to get rid from more stress of searching for solutions for my non-working applications or brand new 64bit crashes, I chose to use 32bit.

[jespdj]

64-bit processor (Intel Core 2 Duo T9300: 2.5 GHz with 6 MB L2 cache), running 64-bit Ubuntu 8.04.

64-bit Ubuntu is getting better with every release, and 64-bit Hardy works great on my laptop.

Installing the notorious proprietary 32-bit applications such as Adobe Flash and Skype is no problem anymore in Hardy: the packages in the Ubuntu and Medibuntu repositories automatically install the necessary adapters and libraries.

In my opinion, there is no good reason to run 32-bit Ubuntu when you have a 64-bit capable processor.


I was pretty excited about this 64bit talk when I bought my new C2D laptop... however, it just ended up to be too much hassle.
Really? What were your problems? Are you sure these problems were specific to the 64-bit version?


32bits is still the most practical way to go, and it works out of the box. Besides, there's not any valuable performance gain from using 64bit OSes, ...
64-bit Ubuntu 8.04 runs great (http://jesperdj.pbwiki.com/Ubuntu+on+the+Dell+XPS+M1530) out-of-the-box on my laptop. For processor-intensive applications (for example, audio or video encoding, or working with 3D graphics which is one of my hobbies), there can be performance improvements of up to 25%-30%.


...since the main applications are still 32bits.
Wrong. On Ubuntu, almost every application is available in a 64-bit native version. There are only some proprietary applications such as Skype which are not available in 64-bit, but the 32-bit version installs and runs just as well on 64-bit Ubuntu.


So, in order to get rid from more stress of searching for solutions for my non-working applications or brand new 64bit crashes, I chose to use 32bit.
In my experience, the 64-bit version is not less or more stable than the 32-bit version.