32 bit... still recommended?

[MisterGaribaldi]

Alright, so we're waaaaaaaaay late into 2012, and nearly to 2013. I just checked, and the currently latest version of Ubuntu, 12.10, still shows that 32 bit is the recommended version.

My question: Is 64 bit still not ideal for people with 64 bit systems to use? Are there still a lot of support issues?

Also, since I'm likely to be running KDE when I go back to running Linux as a daily driver, desktop OS, what is its present relationship with Ubuntu, and with 64 bit?

Thanks!

[mag1strate]

I don't really run into support issues at all, I use matlab all the time and they have 64 bit versions, so does google chrome and firefox. The only things that have problems are older games like doom 3 and quake 4, but if you install the ia32-libs they will run just fine.

Matlab is actually abandoning 32-bit completely starting with their 2013a I believe.

[deadflowr]

Yeah, why they still have a dropdown defaulting to 32bit, is annoying. 64bit has been working fine.

As for KDE and Ubuntu here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEotr1Qi1bQ

[madverb]

The only reason for this is that 32bit can be installed on either a 32bit or 64bit system and 64bit can only be installed on a 64bit system. This I believe is to help people with little understanding install Ubuntu onto their system.
If a new user comes along and downloads the default 64bit version and can't install it on their machine, they are going to give up and move on. That's not what is wanted. We want them to play with it and stick with Linux.

[sffvba[e0rt]

I have ran into a few issues with 64-bit and using Wine when it wants 32-bit libraries... other than that 64-bit works really well for me.


404

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

been using 64bit since 10.04, no problems

[pkadeel]

The only reason for this is that 32bit can be installed on either a 32bit or 64bit system and 64bit can only be installed on a 64bit system. This I believe is to help people with little understanding install Ubuntu onto their system.
If a new user comes along and downloads the default 64bit version and can't install it on their machine, they are going to give up and move on. That's not what is wanted. We want them to play with it and stick with Linux.
+1
Those people who don't know which machine they are using, most probably also don't know which version to download. All they know is to hit the download button. it is then a 50/50 chance and if the new OS fails to install properly, it will be another 5-10 years for Win and Mac users to come back and try again. I know cause I am one of those.

Back in 2000 when I had a little experience in PCs, I tried Red Hat and failed to install it properly and it took me 12 years to come back to try again.

[Statia]

Also, since I'm likely to be running KDE when I go back to running Linux as a daily driver, desktop OS, what is its present relationship with Ubuntu, and with 64 bit?


I'd recommend using Kubuntu if you want Ubuntu with a KDE flavour.
I am using 64-bit Kubuntu and it works well. The ia-32 libs get pulled in automatically if you install something that needs it with apt-get and this works without a hassle.
I've been using 64-bit since 2005 or something, in that time the only problem was the lack of 64-bit Flash. Now it is 2012, Flash still sucks on Linux, but at least it sucks in 64 bits!

[quentinl]

64 is doggy
my brother installed it in virtual box as 64 bit and it didn't work
also it took 6 hours to download
32 is fine

[Erik1984]

Just go for 64 bit if you have a 64 bit processor. If it doesn't work you can always try 32 bit later. Since 12.04 I go for the 64 bit images and the only trouble were 32 bit games and that was solved, like mentioned, by installing ia32-libs.

[Statia]

64 is doggy
my brother installed it in virtual box as 64 bit and it didn't work
also it took 6 hours to download
32 is fine

In order to be able to run a 64-bit system in VirtualBox, your CPU needs to support virtualization and it needs to be enabled in the BIOS. That it did not work in your brother's VM says absolutely nothing about the quality of 64bit Ubuntu, just like the download time is completely irrelevant.

[Uncle Spellbinder]

Biggest reason I'm using 32 bit is my Brother printing drivers. They work out of the box on my 32 bit installs. There are directions to get them to work on a 64 bit install, but I've never had any luck. Until Brother make 64 bit drivers for my printer (or I get another, newer printer) it's32 bit for me.

[Grenage]

64 is doggy
my brother installed it in virtual box as 64 bit and it didn't work
also it took 6 hours to download
32 is fine

I think that this post is a prime example of why 32bit is still recommended - as unfounded as it may be.

[Statia]

I think that this post is a prime example of why 32bit is still recommended - as unfounded as it may be.

Because 32-bit protects against ID10t errors ;-)

[kurt18947]

Biggest reason I'm using 32 bit is my Brother printing drivers. They work out of the box on my 32 bit installs. There are directions to get them to work on a 64 bit install, but I've never had any luck. Until Brother make 64 bit drivers for my printer (or I get another, newer printer) it's32 bit for me.

That's one of the advantages of using Brother's installer script - it takes care of the 32/64 foolishness. Brother is kind of 'interesting' in that they offer a 64 bit scanner driver but not a 64 bit printer driver. I"m not sure why.

[weasel fierce]

I ran 64 bit for the past year or so, and I dont think I ever really ran into issues. Currently on 32, since I wasn't sure if this machine supports 64 bit or not, and I used a USB stick I had prepared for a different machine previously.

Even in events where there are no specific 64 bit option, Ubuntu seems to handle it fine. I can't remember any piece of software I couldn't get to work.

[oldfred]

But if you have a new computer using UEFI you have to download the 64 bit version or you install Ubuntu in BIOS mode and it just does not work.

There is no UEFI option in the 32 bit version.

I think we now are seeing more issues with UEFI than those that have systems than can only run 32 bit versions.

[oldos2er]

If anyone wants to voice their opinion regarding this bug, please do so here (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website-content/+bug/585940)
I have no idea why the web team won't fix this.

[deadflowr]

If anyone wants to voice their opinion regarding this bug, please do so here (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website-content/+bug/585940)
I have no idea why the web team won't fix this.

I think the design should be more like kubuntu's download page.
Still recommending 32-bit, but with the 64-bit fully visible.

[Eddie Wilson]

64 is doggy
my brother installed it in virtual box as 64 bit and it didn't work
also it took 6 hours to download
32 is fine

I've never been able to get a 64 bit distro running properly in VB. As far as a 64 bit distro goes. If I had a 64 bit system, which I do, then I would use a 64 bit distro. 64 bit is not doggy.

[Erik1984]

I ran 64 bit for the past year or so, and I dont think I ever really ran into issues. Currently on 32, since I wasn't sure if this machine supports 64 bit or not, and I used a USB stick I had prepared for a different machine previously.

Even in events where there are no specific 64 bit option, Ubuntu seems to handle it fine. I can't remember any piece of software I couldn't get to work.

Am I misreading your post or does that sound like a contradiction? If your machine does not support 64-bit you simply can't run 64-bit Ubuntu.

[weasel fierce]

Am I misreading your post or does that sound like a contradiction? If your machine does not support 64-bit you simply can't run 64-bit Ubuntu.

actually, it's just because I didn't explain myself proper :) I have a different computer now, since the old one died.

[Erik1984]

actually, it's just because I didn't explain myself proper :) I have a different computer now, since the old one died.

I was expecting that ;) but couldn't conclude it from your sentence so thanks for clarifying.

[madinc]

I think that this post is a prime example of why 32bit is still recommended - as unfounded as it may be.

Well i think that post is a prime example of somebody that don't know what is saying my PC is 64-bit i got 8 VM's all of them 64-bit and everything works 100% i can only say that if you have a 64-bit CPU that supports virtualization everything that didn't work for him will work just fine :)

[nathan.the.sane]

The only reason for this is that 32bit can be installed on either a 32bit or 64bit system and 64bit can only be installed on a 64bit system. This I believe is to help people with little understanding install Ubuntu onto their system.
If a new user comes along and downloads the default 64bit version and can't install it on their machine, they are going to give up and move on. That's not what is wanted. We want them to play with it and stick with Linux.

My opinion is that making the drop-down box default to 32-bit (but without saying "recommended") and having a big orange "DOWNLOAD" button they can click on would be sufficient to steer this type of user right. Make the button big enough and orange enough, and they probably won't even see the option to change it from the default, which is good. As it is, I think having "recommended" on 32-bit scares off the class of people who know the difference but are now suddenly afraid that they'll have to wrestle with the 64-bit version to make it work, which is not the case. In other words, what the "recommended" thing does is make everybody ask "So what's screwed up with the 64-bit version?".

[deadflowr]

My opinion is that making the drop-down box default to 32-bit (but without saying "recommended") and having a big orange "DOWNLOAD" button they can click on would be sufficient to steer this type of user right. Make the button big enough and orange enough, and they probably won't even see the option to change it from the default, which is good. As it is, I think having "recommended" on 32-bit scares off the class of people who know the difference but are now suddenly afraid that they'll have to wrestle with the 64-bit version to make it work, which is not the case. In other words, what the "recommended" thing does is make everybody ask "So what's screwed up with the 64-bit version?".

Why not have two boxes, one that says 'huh?' and one that says 64-bit.

[monkeybrain2012]

I guess the reason is that 32-bit kernel will run in 64-bit machines but not the other way around and many people with older computers (especially laptops) are still running 32 bits. Since Ubuntu targets the average users (many of whom don't upgrade their hardware frequently and can't tell the difference) so it is meant to err on the safe side.

[nathan.the.sane]

Why not have two boxes, one that says 'huh?' and one that says 64-bit.

Intriguing. :-k

Or an orange button that says "Regular" and a plaid one that says "Ludicrous".

[Paqman]

Alright, so we're waaaaaaaaay late into 2012, and nearly to 2013. I just checked, and the currently latest version of Ubuntu, 12.10, still shows that 32 bit is the recommended version.

My question: Is 64 bit still not ideal for people with 64 bit systems to use? Are there still a lot of support issues?


This question came up a couple of releases ago, when it was mooted that the "recommended" version be switched to 64-bit. However, someone did a quick survey, and something like a quarter of all the hardware that was certified for Ubuntu was 32-bit only.

So it's nothing to do with 64-bit being no good. It's just that there's still a long tail of legacy hardware that Ubuntu is obliged to support.

[mike acker]

it goes without saying that 32 is obsolete and the future will all be 64.*

i find this particularly interesting because I installed 16GB ram in my new U-box.

the Performance Monitor has yet to indicate 2GB in use. it usually runs very close to 1GB even. it's showing 1.0GB right now and I have Firefox, Thunderbird, and Audacious active

I just now opened GeoGebra ( the math program ) and memory use went to 1.2GB wooo wooo!

so what's the point of 64 bit? 32 bit can use up to 4GB installed memory ...

first off I think that performance monitor is pretty much suspect: i think it reports only system memory use

~~~
so in the end what happens to the 32 bit user is simple: stuff stops coming out in 32 bit versions and the 32 bit user ends up scrounging the archives for old versions of stuff. and then that doesn't even work anymore as the hardware gets phased out

so the clear strategy is switch to 64 bit as soon as you can conviently get your hands on good 64bit copies of the software you want to use.

~~~
* In my view 64 is excessive: 48 would be enough,-- BUT (and this is a huge but) 64 = 2x32 fetch and I understand the fetch width on x86 remains 32 bits.

but then every prediction throughout the history of computers that "x" >= "enough" has been shown x < "enough":confused:

[Paqman]

it goes without saying that 32 is obsolete and the future will all be 64.*

i find this particularly interesting because I installed 16GB ram in my new U-box.

the Performance Monitor has yet to indicate 2GB in use. it usually runs very close to 1GB even. it's showing 1.0GB right now and I have Firefox, Thunderbird, and Audacious active

I just now opened GeoGebra ( the math program ) and memory use went to 1.2GB wooo wooo!


This is why I'm a bit baffled by people recommending 8GB or 16GB RAM for Ubuntu machines in this forum. For general use 4GB is still more than sufficient. Ubuntu will run ok on a 1GB machine (I know, I have a couple).


so what's the point of 64 bit? 32 bit can use up to 4GB installed memory ...

64-bit is faster. The ability to address more memory is a nice bonus IMO, but that extra RAM is only useful for the really RAM-hungry desktop jobs like CAD or Windows VMs. Obviously in the future that will change, and you'll actually need 4GB+ of RAM for Ubuntu.

Besides, current versions of 32-bit Ubuntu can address 4GB+ of RAM anyway. Memory size is a non-issue.

The main reason to install 64-bit is to use your CPU at full speed, instead of being throttled down to 32-bit speeds.

[bullmecha]

I don't really mind the 32bit versions, as I run it on my old Athlon Xp 3k system. Its fun to tinker around and play with as I am fairly new to Ubuntu / Linux. I play a various assortment of games so I am testing them slowly with WINE on the older system, once I am ready I will attempt the move to my i7 system and shall see what happens.

[Artemis3]

I have ran into a few issues with 64-bit and using Wine when it wants 32-bit libraries...

You should have the wine1.4-386:386 package installed. I have both (the other is wine1.4-amd64), and have zero issues (but i have never tried running 64 bits windows apps).

Steam is 32 bits, because Debian implemented multiarch, 32 bits apps pull their 32 bits dependencies on their own resulting, again, in zero issues.

There is no reason to use 32 bits unless you have a pentium 4 or older.

[Artemis3]

I don't really mind the 32bit versions, as I run it on my old Athlon Xp 3k system.

That cpu supports 64 bits...

[Artemis3]

Besides, current versions of 32-bit Ubuntu can address 4GB+ of RAM anyway. Memory size is a non-issue.

PAE lets you address the extra memory, but it still restricts how much a program (or thread?) can address at once; so a single app can't get more than 2g. There is no point in PAE unless you have a really old server (say, p4 era) with lots of ram. A highly unlikely scenario for workstations. Also, the older processors which actually need 32 bits, most likely don't support PAE. So... make your conclusion.

[bullmecha]

That cpu supports 64 bits...

That system is a single core AthlonXP3000 processor, 2100mhz, 2GB DDR2 RAM, ATI 3850 8x AGP Card. The 64 bit, 12.04 LTS I have on my USB drive will not load on that system. :P

[Artemis3]

That system is a single core AthlonXP3000 processor, 2100mhz, 2GB DDR2 RAM, ATI 3850 8x AGP Card. The 64 bit, 12.04 LTS I have on my USB drive will not load on that system. :P

Oh, thats the first with (p3) SSE instructions, never mind then.

[Paqman]

PAE lets you address the extra memory, but it still restricts how much a program (or thread?) can address at once; so a single app can't get more than 2g. There is no point in PAE unless you have a really old server (say, p4 era) with lots of ram. A highly unlikely scenario for workstations. Also, the older processors which actually need 32 bits, most likely don't support PAE. So... make your conclusion.

I agree, it's a hacky solution to a problem that only a small amount of old hardware would ever have.

[forrestcupp]

Unless you're dealing with specialized hardware, there is nothing wrong at all with 64-bit. It has come a very long way in the past few years. In my opinion, they should recommend 64-bit, but maybe include a warning to make sure your hardware can support it. I think they need to have a simple app available to download that can tell you if your hardware supports 64-bit. I wonder if it would be possible to create a web app to do that without even having to download anything.


I have ran into a few issues with 64-bit and using Wine when it wants 32-bit libraries... other than that 64-bit works really well for me.Especially if you're using Winetricks to install dlls or something, you run into a lot of trouble for that. The way I take care of that is to set Wine to run win32 instead of 64-bit. The problem with that is that you have to delete your .wine directory and start over. But if you were willing to do that, just delete your .wine folder and do this:

export WINEARCH=win32
winecfg


64 is doggy
my brother installed it in virtual box as 64 bit and it didn't work
also it took 6 hours to download
32 is fineLike someone else said, your hardware has to support 64-bit in virtualization, and you have to mess around with the settings in your VM to get it to work properly. In a VM, 32-bit is probably better, but on bare metal, 64-bit is definitely the way to go. The benefits are definitely worth it, and being able to handle more than 4GB of RAM is only one of the many benefits.


Am I misreading your post or does that sound like a contradiction? If your machine does not support 64-bit you simply can't run 64-bit Ubuntu.Never say "can't". I forget who it was, but someone on here posted about a guy who created an emulator on the 8-bit Commodore 64 that actually emulated a 32-bit processor, and he got Ubuntu working on it.

Edit: I don't think it was a C64, but it was 8-bit, whatever it was. Here's an article about it (http://liliputing.com/2012/03/8-bit-pc-can-run-ubuntu-takes-about-6-hours-to-boot.html).

[monkeybrain2012]

Somebody posted a thread on the absolute beginner section apparently having problems with wine running on 64 bit machines (Honestly I didn't even know that before)

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2083878&page=2

Unfortunately I am not a big wine user and never use it on 64 bit machines so couldn't really help. OP has switched to 32 bit in the end. Wish some of you here were there to give better advice. :(