How many people actually take advantage of their 64bit processor?

[viciouslime]

I couldn't find a similar poll to this, apologies if there is one. I was just interested in how mnay people actually use their cpu to its "full potential". I have a 64bit cpu in both my laptop and desktop, but use only 32bit OSs. I am just installing 64bit feisty on my macbook as I type this. If it isn't too difficult to get things like flash going I might just keep it...

[spinflick]

I have 64bit cpu and run Edgy64 but haven't managed to work out flash yet. :(

[Mateo]

so, what are the advantages anyways. I don't want to buy a 64 bit because i think you have to have different software (don't understand why), and there is not nearly as much software.

[lukew]

I couldn't find a similar poll to this, apologies if there is one. I was just interested in how mnay people actually use their cpu to its "full potential". I have a 64bit cpu in both my laptop and desktop, but use only 32bit OSs. I am just installing 64bit feisty on my macbook as I type this. If it isn't too difficult to get things like flash going I might just keep it...

I tried but lack of completeness for 64 bit packages especially codecs drove me back to 32 bit.

chroot seemed like too much effort.

[maxamillion]

Generally if you are running a 64-bit processor in a machine you use for desktop tasks, you aren't really reaping many (if any) benefits of the extra bits but I personally run it purely out of stubborn pride .... I just can't seem to bring myself to run a 32-bit OS on 64-bit hardware, but I will admit that the support for 32-bit software is far better than 64-bit (especially in the desktop realm) mainly because it had over a decade more worth of development but we are slowly working towards a bright future where 64-bit will be a seamless alternative, until then we will be "happy hacking" with workarounds and ports for different issues here and there.

[M$LOL]

I have 64bit cpu and run Edgy64 but haven't managed to work out flash yet. :(
See Kilz' howto for flash with 32 bit FF. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1174435)

I'm using 64 bit Edgy on a Core 2 Duo, and it couldn't be better. :)

[spinflick]

Thanks M$LOL ;) I will have a look at that later on :)

[plb]

I have a 64 but use 32 for sheer convenience. I also see no "visible" performance loss.

[igknighted]

so, what are the advantages anyways. I don't want to buy a 64 bit because i think you have to have different software (don't understand why), and there is not nearly as much software.

64bit processors are the same architecture as 32 bit, but with extra capabilities added on. Just as an i686, i486, etc. processor runs i386 Ubuntu, so does x86_64 (amd64). It also has the capability to run x86_64.

[M$LOL]

I have a 64 but use 32 for sheer convenience. I also see no "visible" performance loss.

Can I have your extra 32 bits? :lol:

You know that you are wasting your proc's extra power? You might have a couple of hiccups setting it up, but still, I've experienced no downside to 64 bit.

[plb]

Can I have your extra 32 bits? :lol:

You know that you are wasting your proc's extra power? You might have a couple of hiccups setting it up, but still, I've experienced no downside to 64 bit.

I have used 64bit with Gentoo and Debian for a while and just got tired of having to chroot 32 bit environments for flash and codecs. Also, some applications besides the 2 mentioned just don't like to compile on a 64 and it gets annoying. As I said, I see no performance loss.

[wesley_of_course]

Wesley here ;





See Kilz' howto for flash with 32 bit FF. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1174435)

I'm using 64 bit Edgy on a Core 2 Duo, and it couldn't be better. :)

Simple 64 is in Synaptic Package Manager , Cheers !

:popcorn:

[Mateo]

64bit processors are the same architecture as 32 bit, but with extra capabilities added on. Just as an i686, i486, etc. processor runs i386 Ubuntu, so does x86_64 (amd64). It also has the capability to run x86_64.


What are these "added capabilities"?

[wesley_of_course]

Wesley here ;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

[Hortinstein]

yeah i am in electrical engineering classes where we talk a lot about buses etc, and i just really dont understand how much improvement i should expect if i install the 64-bit version

[igknighted]

What are these "added capabilities"?

The "extra capabilities" are the ability to handle twice as complex instructions. (64bit vs. 32bit). Its not really "power" as a lot of people say, but rather the processor can handle more complex tasks without breaking them apart (well, since 32bit is normal, I guess it would be more appropriate to say that 64bit compiled apps combine instructions into one more complex one... same difference tho). The point I was making above was that while an amd64 chip takes the same instructions as the x86 chip, it has the capability to receive more complex instructions. By using 32bit the computer will only send it the simpler instructions, but it is perfectly capable, so there is no "incompatability".

[Mateo]

The "extra capabilities" are the ability to handle twice as complex instructions. (64bit vs. 32bit). Its not really "power" as a lot of people say, but rather the processor can handle more complex tasks without breaking them apart (well, since 32bit is normal, I guess it would be more appropriate to say that 64bit compiled apps combine instructions into one more complex one... same difference tho). The point I was making above was that while an amd64 chip takes the same instructions as the x86 chip, it has the capability to receive more complex instructions. By using 32bit the computer will only send it the simpler instructions, but it is perfectly capable, so there is no "incompatability".

What are some examples of this "more complex tasks"?

[Ubunted]

I have an Athlon 64 X2 4200 running Windows XP Pro X64 Edition. I have also played 64-bit Far Cry, and it looks AWESOME.

[igknighted]

What are some examples of this "more complex tasks"?

Any task can be made more complex. Imagine you want to add some numbers. Say your current processor uses one cycle to add 2+3=5. Then the next uses 5+6=11. Two cycles, your answer is 11. In 64 bit computing, a more complex instruction would be 2+3+6=11, all in one cycle. Half the time. Granted this is a gross oversimplification, but this is essentially what is happening. Most of the time you wont see a significant advantage due to this, but if you were doing something really processor intensive like graphics or video editing, or compiling, then you would see large gains.

[sawjew]

I have an Intel core 2 duo running 64 bit Feisty and have had no significant problems. I used this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=341727 to install flashplayer and it works flawlessly. I use Blackdown Java for my java plugin and have had no problems yet and I have had no problems playing dvds or music at this stage.

After installing the 32 bit libraries as required for Flash I have since installed Google Earth, Crossover Office and Matlab (all 32 bit applications) with no problems at all.

If people don't use 64 bit OSs then the development will not proceed and it will always be behind. I use a 64 bit OS because I can.

[rsambuca]

What are some examples of this "more complex tasks"?
If you are ripping a lot of CD's or DVD's, transcoding video from one format into another, or doing 3D Rendering, you can notice upwards of 30% performance gain.

If you are just word processing, emailing, and surfing the net, then you probably won't notice a thing (unless you can detect milliseconds!).

Personally, I think that thanks to guys like Kilz and his How-To's, setting up a 64-bit system isn't really that much different from the 32 bit system, and keep in mind, you only do the set-up once. After that it is pretty smooth sailing.

[RAV TUX]

I have a Intel EM64T dual core 64 bit Dell XPS Gen 5....

I only use 64bit OS's

The best OS I have found for a 64bit empowered computer is one I built myself:

Oz
(x86_64 version)
http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,193.0.html

[Mateo]

i don't understand why it needs different applications though.

[mech7]

On my desktop i run XP x64.. most 3d software these days is 64 bit also so no problems also 32 bit apps run too :D

[rsambuca]

I have a Intel EM64T dual core 64 bit Dell XPS Gen 5....

I only use 64bit OS's

The best OS I have found for a 64bit empowered computer is one I built myself:

Oz
(x86_64 version)
http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,193.0.html

Nice plug!:razz:

[viciouslime]

I have just discovered today that a w64codecs package is now available too, so that makes things a bit easier. The package has also been made available for edgy from my understanding.

See here for more info: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Medibuntu

[RAV TUX]

Nice plug!:razz:Thank You, brought to you for your enjoyment from your fellow humble ubuntuforums.org member: RAV TUX:)

[morequarky]

I have no clue what the official name of the processor I have on my desktop.

I run XP64, Ubuntu64, and XP on it. Well, the XP is only for my wife. I don't use that partition. :D

How do I find out the full name and chipset and the whole nine yards for my computer?

Strangely my XP64 is faster then Ubuntu64 it seems. Probably because I know how to tweak windows a little easier.

:D

[rsambuca]

I have no clue what the official name of the processor I have on my desktop.

I run XP64, Ubuntu64, and XP on it. Well, the XP is only for my wife. I don't use that partition. :D

How do I find out the full name and chipset and the whole nine yards for my computer?

Strangely my XP64 is faster then Ubuntu64 it seems. Probably because I know how to tweak windows a little easier.

:DIn XP, go the the start menu -> control panel -> system -> device manager

In ubuntu, there is a hardware information in the preferences tab.

[WiseElben]

I choose to not exploit my powers... yet. I don't see a need to use a 64bit OS at the moment. I got an AMD64 simply because it's faster than same-price P4 processors.

[Iowa Dave]

I'm using 32-bit Dapper on a 64-bit AMD Sempron in a recent barebone build. When they get the drivers all working in the 64-bit distro then I'll make the switch. Meanwhile I fear the time and aggravation spent dealing with "hiccups" in the 64-bit version might more than offset any savings in CPU cycles (as if I could actually type fast enough to use them!) :-)

[viciouslime]

Well I have done some initial testing of my 64bit feisty install and wow!

I downloaded an mpeg video from the creative commons website and used ffmpeg2theora to re-encode it to ogg theora format. On 32bit I got an average time of 2m23s, using 64bit I get an average time of 1m32s!

That is a MASSIVE time saving! Makes a big difference when you have a big batch of dvds you want to rip. In other words, if you do any sort of re-encoding on ubuntu, I would say you HAVE to switch to 64bit. So far the only thing that doesn't work exactly as in 32bit ubuntu is flash. I have seen plenty of guides though and it looks pretty simple, just haven't tried it yet.

[Erunno]

The only advantage I know of is the 64 bit word length results in a larger address space which is usually uninteresting for people with less then 4 GB RAM, larger variables etc.

Why does everyone think that 64 bit CPUs bring some kind of performance improvement ? Because 64 is greater than 32 ? AMD's marketing department seems to have succeeded.

[viciouslime]

The only advantage I know of is the 64 bit word length results in a larger address space which is usually uninteresting for people with less then 4 GB RAM, larger variables etc.

Why does everyone think that 64 bit CPUs bring some kind of performance improvement ? Because 64 is greater than 32 ? AMD's marketing department seems to have succeeded.


They do provide better performance, but only in certain areas that's all...

Sure if you're just word processing and web browsing you won't notice any difference at all, but as my post above suggests, the improvements when doing things that actually can make use of the 64bits is massive, video encoding, large database servers, etc.

[Erunno]

They do provide better performance, but only in certain areas that's all...

Sure if you're just word processing and web browsing you won't notice any difference at all, but as my post above suggests, the improvements when doing things that actually can make use of the 64bits is massive, video encoding, large database servers, etc.

Another possible explanation might be that when creating x86_64 packages the maintainer can make certain assumption about the target processor. While the 32 bit packages are targetted at the i386 platform and probably won't make any use of multimedia improvements like MMX, SSE1/2 etc the x86_64 extension only exists on newer CPUs. Basically using the 64 bit packages might have the side-effect that the binaries make use of some of the newer CPU instructions which were partly developed to improve multimedia performance and has nothing to do with the 64 bit word length.

[igknighted]

Another possible explanation might be that when creating x86_64 packages the maintainer can make certain assumption about the target processor. While the 32 bit packages are targetted at the i386 platform and probably won't make any use of multimedia improvements like MMX, SSE1/2 etc the x86_64 extension only exists on newer CPUs. Basically using the 64 bit packages might have the side-effect that the binaries make use of some of the newer CPU instructions which were partly developed to improve multimedia performance and has nothing to do with the 64 bit word length.

Good point... don't they post the cflags and use flags used in the compile somewhere? Might be interesting to check out.

[bonzodog]

I am waiting for the right time to switch back to a 64 bit OS, I currently run Zenwalk Linux 32 bit.

I have yet to find a complete 64 bit Linux distro, with as much software and as upto date as it's 32 bit sister distro.

Especially one based on Slackware.

I am keeping an eye on frugalware 64 bit at the moment, but I have been told it's installer does not work at all, and it's library of software is behind that of the 32 bit version.

[rsambuca]

The only advantage I know of is the 64 bit word length results in a larger address space which is usually uninteresting for people with less then 4 GB RAM, larger variables etc.

Why does everyone think that 64 bit CPUs bring some kind of performance improvement ? Because 64 is greater than 32 ? AMD's marketing department seems to have succeeded.Have you tried transcoding video in a 32bit app vs a 64bit app?

[Erunno]

Have you tried transcoding video in a 32bit app vs a 64bit app?


Another possible explanation might be that when creating x86_64 packages the maintainer can make certain assumption about the target processor. While the 32 bit packages are targetted at the i386 platform and probably won't make any use of multimedia improvements like MMX, SSE1/2 etc the x86_64 extension only exists on newer CPUs. Basically using the 64 bit packages might have the side-effect that the binaries make use of some of the newer CPU instructions which were partly developed to improve multimedia performance and has nothing to do with the 64 bit word length.

...

[userundefine]

I have a 64bit proc and would very well take advantage of it if I could use it exactly as I do on the desktop. If this cpu were in a server, I would definitely run 64bit since it's just a server. But things on the desktop aren't all the way there yet.

[Medieval_Creations]

I was running 32bit ubuntu (and other flavors) because of some of the same reasons already listed.

I switched awhile ago to 64bit on my AMD Athalon +3000 and I saw a significant performance improvement over 32bit in everything I run.

With the help of Simple64 & Kilz HowTo: Firefox is up and running with flash, mplayer & java working.

The only applications I miss are Wine & VirtualBox, which have known issues. Aside from that I've taken the leap and don't plan on looking back.

[rsambuca]

Erunno. Ummm... perhaps I am missing it. Is that a yes or a no?

[mips]

If you have a 64bit PC and want to use a 64bit OS then I suggest you might want to look elsewhere. I tried 64bit Ubuntu before and it was just to much of a pain to get fully functional.

A distro like Sabayon for example is painless. You install it and it works, end of story.

[rsambuca]

If you have a 64bit PC and want to use a 64bit OS then I suggest you might want to look elsewhere. I tried 64bit Ubuntu before and it was just to much of a pain to get fully functional.

A distro like Sabayon for example is painless. You install it and it works, end of story.

Certainly there are a few things in Sabayon 64-bit that are set-up better from the start. On my rig, though, Sabayon is quite a bit more buggy than ubuntu, so I tend to boot into ubuntu more frequently.

[Medieval_Creations]

If you have a 64bit PC and want to use a 64bit OS then I suggest you might want to look elsewhere. I tried 64bit Ubuntu before and it was just to much of a pain to get fully functional.

A distro like Sabayon for example is painless. You install it and it works, end of story.

Every rig will probably have different quirks. They always do.
Ubuntu's amd64 works great for my PC, but it may not be the best for others.

[viciouslime]

Another possible explanation might be that when creating x86_64 packages the maintainer can make certain assumption about the target processor. While the 32 bit packages are targetted at the i386 platform and probably won't make any use of multimedia improvements like MMX, SSE1/2 etc the x86_64 extension only exists on newer CPUs. Basically using the 64 bit packages might have the side-effect that the binaries make use of some of the newer CPU instructions which were partly developed to improve multimedia performance and has nothing to do with the 64 bit word length.

That's an interesting point. However, even if this is the reason for the performance gain and not the fact the processor is 64bit capable, I don't really care, all I know is there is a major performance gain and it is well worth a bit of difficulty with flash to get it.

I am intrigued by that now though...

[Iowa Dave]

Gratefully, I've really enjoyed this thread. Still a newbie, but a successful barebone builder and ubuntuphile, I've learned a lot sitting on the edge of this table.

The question seems to be settling in my mind around when, not whether, to convert. On that note, I'll share a story told me by an elderly friend who retired years ago as head of engineering for a major automobile manufacturing company.

"I always wait until five years after a new engine design comes out before I buy one for my car," he said. "It takes that long for the boys to work the bugs out."

At the rate Ubuntu keeps improving, though, I'd predict we won't have to wait that long for 64-bit to stabilize.

Cheers!

[FoolsGold]

I have a 64-bit processor, but I run 32-bit Ubuntu. I've tried a 64-bit version a long time before (Dapper), and it sucked. I gained no noticable speed increase, I had trouble running Quake 4 because it didn't like the 64-bit version of SDL (easy to fix, just install the 32-bit version alongside, but I had to work that out first).

Ultimately it was more trouble than it was worth.

[RandomJoe]

Currently running 32-bit Dapper, mostly because I wanted/needed a stable, known system for my primary system. I am considering upgrading it to Feisty in the next month or two, and may also go ahead and try 64-bit at the same time. I will, of course, move things over to a spare machine so I have all those necessary apps readily available just in case everything crashes in a fiery ball of flames... :D

I'll have to take a look at everything I'm running and see how compatible it all is first...

[antenna]

I've run 64 bit Linux (Ubuntu, Debian, Arch) for a couple of years now and have had no problems whatsoever I have to say. I've no desire to run 32 bit apps though, i'm sure that helps.

[spinflick]

If you have a 64bit PC and want to use a 64bit OS then I suggest you might want to look elsewhere. I tried 64bit Ubuntu before and it was just to much of a pain to get fully functional.

A distro like Sabayon for example is painless. You install it and it works, end of story.

I have just installed Sabayon, could you tell me exactly what I need to get flash working? :)

[igknighted]

I have just installed Sabayon, could you tell me exactly what I need to get flash working? :)

If it doesn't work OOTB I would be curious to know how you managed that feat...

[mips]

I have just installed Sabayon, could you tell me exactly what I need to get flash working? :)

I assumed you installed the Mini Edition ???

The mini edition cd does not have enough space for flash & java. This will do it:


emerge -av netscape-flash
emerge -av nsplugin
emerge -av jre

The DVD version has this installed and working by default.

[mips]

If it doesn't work OOTB I would be curious to know how you managed that feat...

He probably installed the Mini Edition CD and NOT the DVD. The mini edition is great but it requires you to install flash & java as there is no space on the CD for it.

[igknighted]

He probably installed the Mini Edition CD and NOT the DVD. The mini edition is great but it requires you to install flash & java as there is no space on the CD for it.

No, the mini has those installed... well, flash for sure, but maybe not java... in an earlier version (3.1 perhaps?) I had to install the jdk myself, but I don't remember checking for the time I had 3.3 installed. I do know that flash worked OOTB for me, because I had issues when I installed swiftfox (i forgot I used 64bit, so the ndispluginwrapper'ed flash didn't work on my 32bit swiftfox... in retrospect compiling FF for 64bit with my exact optimizations would have been a better move I suppose... w/e)

[viciouslime]

What about installing flash on 64bit feisty? There seem to be a variety of methods listed all over, here on the forums, on the wiki etc. I haven't seen any feisty specific ones though. So, what is the BEST way to get flash working under 64bit ubuntu (feisty)?

All thoughts appreciated :)

[Wartooth]

My AMD 64 was free, along with a lot of other hardware that I used to build my 'learn and use Linux' box. Seeing as this is my first time out with Linux in any form, I went with Dapper for the LTS and figured 32 bit would make it easier for me. I'm not worried about getting max performance out of this rig, I just want a stable learning platform, and that is what I have. :)

[viciouslime]

Well, now you've learnt all about it, you can move to 64bit and learn some more :p

[mips]

No, the mini has those installed... well, flash for sure, but maybe not java... in an earlier version (3.1 perhaps?) I had to install the jdk myself, but I don't remember checking for the time I had 3.3 installed. I do know that flash worked OOTB for me, because I had issues when I installed swiftfox (i forgot I used 64bit, so the ndispluginwrapper'ed flash didn't work on my 32bit swiftfox... in retrospect compiling FF for 64bit with my exact optimizations would have been a better move I suppose... w/e)

Well one way to answer the question for the person above is to do a emerge -s on those packages I listed. you will see they are not installed.

If you check the /scripts folder the one file listed all the packages removed to build the mini version. Flash and java was removed.

I distinctly recall I had to install them as they were not installed.

[viciouslime]

Any suggestions for flash in feisty?

[Medieval_Creations]

Any suggestions for flash in feisty?

I used Simple64 to install FireFox 32bit with Flash & MPlayer Plug-ins. Worked perfectly.

http://www.xnowherex.net/simple64/index.php

[spinflick]

I assumed you installed the Mini Edition ???

The mini edition cd does not have enough space for flash & java. This will do it:


emerge -av netscape-flash
emerge -av nsplugin
emerge -av jre

The DVD version has this installed and working by default.

Thanks for your help Mips, yes I did install the mini cd. and tried emerge on the listed items....there is no nsplugin ebuild available
and the netscape and jre needed me to update something/somewhere forget now it was this morning when I tried anyway I couldnt work it out and I wasnt given any details on how to do it.

Looks like it's back to 32bit for both Ubuntu and Sabayon :( thanks anyway.

[mips]

Thanks for your help Mips, yes I did install the mini cd. and tried emerge on the listed items....there is no nsplugin ebuild available
and the netscape and jre needed me to update something/somewhere forget now it was this morning when I tried anyway I couldnt work it out and I wasnt given any details on how to do it.

Looks like it's back to 32bit for both Ubuntu and Sabayon :( thanks anyway.

spinflick,

Create a new post with your problem here, http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=166

I will try and help you there which would be better as we are hijacking the OPs thread and taking it off topic.

PM me the link to your post and I will try my best to assist you. it should really be very simple.

[viciouslime]

spinflick,

Create a new post with your problem here, http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=166

I will try and help you there which would be better as we are hijacking the OPs thread and taking it off topic.

PM me the link to your post and I will try my best to assist you. it should really be very simple.

Yeh! Hijacking my thread you! :lolflag:

[spinflick]

Was'nt me Guv, honest!, anyway I just made my own, what was your question again? :lolflag:

[viciouslime]

That's an interesting point. However, even if this is the reason for the performance gain and not the fact the processor is 64bit capable, I don't really care, all I know is there is a major performance gain and it is well worth a bit of difficulty with flash to get it.

I am intrigued by that now though...

Can anyone running 32bit ubuntu post the out put of "mencoder". If you run it with no arguments, it tells you the cpu flags:


MEncoder 2:1.0~rc1-0ubuntu9 (C) 2000-2006 MPlayer Team
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+ (Family: 15, Model: 47, Stepping: 2)
CPUflags: Type: 15 MMX: 1 MMX2: 1 3DNow: 1 3DNow2: 1 SSE: 1 SSE2: 1
Compiled with runtime CPU detection.

[diskotek]

I choose to not exploit my powers... yet. I don't see a need to use a 64bit OS at the moment. I got an AMD64 simply because it's faster than same-price P4 processors.

i'm same 100%, i just bought 64bit AMD because it was cheap.. but i'll try it when i have an external hardisk for backup my data.

[RandomJoe]

Can anyone running 32bit ubuntu post the out put of "mencoder". If you run it with no arguments, it tells you the cpu flags:


MEncoder 2:0.99+1.0pre7try2+cvs20060117-0ubuntu8 (C) 2000-2006 MPlayer Team
CPU: Intel (Family: 6, Stepping: 6)
CPUflags: Type: 6 MMX: 1 MMX2: 1 3DNow: 0 3DNow2: 0 SSE: 1 SSE2: 1
Compiled with runtime CPU detection.
That's on 32-bit Dapper...

[mips]

Yeh! Hijacking my thread you! :lolflag:

Please don't get vicious with me lime :)

[viciouslime]

MEncoder 2:0.99+1.0pre7try2+cvs20060117-0ubuntu8 (C) 2000-2006 MPlayer Team
CPU: Intel (Family: 6, Stepping: 6)
CPUflags: Type: 6 MMX: 1 MMX2: 1 3DNow: 0 3DNow2: 0 SSE: 1 SSE2: 1
Compiled with runtime CPU detection.
That's on 32-bit Dapper...

Hmmmm so the only difference is 3dnow being enabled, but they are both compiled with runtime CPU detection, does this allow them to turn on 3DNow if the processor supports it anyway? Also, would 3DNow be all that beneficial...? I would have thought onle SSE and MMX would really come in to play when encoding, but I don't really know much about any of these technologies tbh.

[viciouslime]

Please don't get vicious with me lime :)

:p

[misfitpierce]

I like the 64 bit personally. Support is catching up program wise now in this day and time because ppl are starting to realize they have the hardware for it. I've noticed performance increases while doing some tasks on computer and copying music to computer from a disc. It just seems to hit faster and I like that. :)

[triptoe]

When gnome is so bloated that it needs more than 4 gigs of ram, i will start using the 64 bit os version

[donovan1983]

I don't see any reason to move to a 64bit OS until I need to use more than 4GB of RAM. I may very well max out my RAM to that within the next 6 months, but I will barely be using 1/4 of it most of the time, if even that. In Ubuntu with 1GB of RAM I rarely use more than 400MB of RAM with a good number of programs open in GNOME, and I can run VirtualBox with a healthy allocation of memory for a guest OS and still not worry about hitting the swap partition. The extra memory I'll be installing will be more for being able to run more OSs simultaneously within virtualization software, I really don't do anything else that needs more memory.

[yostral]

64bits is not only for memory. You have better performances too. Why? I don't know. But I can "feel" that. I now use Feisty32, Gutsy32 and Gutsy64. Gutsy64 is much more responsive than 32bits version. And when you need calculation (video encoding, picture editing, etc...) it's between 2 and 3 times faster. I didn't really believe that until I saw it. And all the softwares I use are in the repos...
I will never come back to a 32bits version, sure.

[wolfger]

64 bit is sadly not ready for prime time (or is that the other way around?), and I got tired of waiting for it, so now I only use 32-bit OSes.

[insane_alien]

64-bit all the way.

unless you count the 32-bit virtual machine i'm running.

everything is working great and there were only a few little tweaks getting it set up. :D

[miggols99]

I don't use 64 bit because the open source ATI driver is out of date (using Arch) so I get problems I had before with the older driver. If it was up to date I'd use it happily.

[praet]

Is there an upgrade path or way to install a 64bit kernel on a running 32bit ubuntu installation?

[rsambuca]

Not on the same partition.

[Darkhack]

It's still way too annoying to try to get all the necessary stuff set up. At this time 32 bit is just easier. I have an Athlon64 and I wanted to use it, but then I found out I'd be spending a bunch of time chrooting to get software working and that just doesn't sound very fun.

I'm currently using Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty), and since it is the first version of Ubuntu for which I have not had any problems with, I am going to stick with it until the next LTS (8.04) rather than upgrade to Gutsy right away. When the next LTS is out this April, I think that I will consider moving to 64 bits.

[rsambuca]

It's still way too annoying to try to get all the necessary stuff set up. At this time 32 bit is just easier. I have an Athlon64 and I wanted to use it, but then I found out I'd be spending a bunch of time chrooting to get software working and that just doesn't sound very fun.May I ask when was the last time you tried 64-bit?

[Npl]

I dont have a 64-bit CPU yet, and Ill likely install 64-bit Ubuntu as soon as that aint the case anymore.
But I got to ask those that claim software for 64bit will run significantly faster: On what do you base this claim? Some benchmarks to back it up?

Programms on 64vs32bit have the opporturnity to run faster(more registers on 64 bit, garantued SSE2 support, some other things) OR slower (pointers take 2x the space, potentially disabled asm-code). All in all I doubt it makes that much of a difference in most cases, which would imply that there is little reason for casual users to bother with 64vs32bit and just install the same version that works everywhere.

[phrostbyte]

The performence impact of 64-bit increases as you start adding memory to the system. I recommend 64-bit Fiesty to anyone with 3GB of memory or higher.

[phrostbyte]

Hopefully most of the major problems with 64-bit Ubuntu will be resolved in Gutsy, specifically Flash (since Gutsy will be shipping with an OSS flash player).

[RaiD_5]

Well, i am kinda forced into running x64 OS. i have intel core2 extreme, which is 4 64-bit procs.

[IronAvatar]

The one thing I have noticed is that compiling cross-platform tool chains on a 64-bit build is VERY fast compared to the 32-bit build. I remember when I had built the PSP tool-chain earlier this year, and it had taken something like 4-hours.

I switched over to 64-bit with Feisty, and the same build took just 90 minutes to complete. The general speed of the OS doesn't seem to be any different, but CPU intensive tasks are definitely faster.

I can't think of any reason to switch 32-bit....it would feel like living in the dark ages with that 4GB memory limit :)

[exoren22]

Well, i am kinda forced into running x64 OS. i have intel core2 extreme, which is 4 64-bit procs.

Actually, the Core 2 technology ties two 32bit processors, a la Nintendo64 gpu, to achieve a shared 64bit environment, so the extreme is really like 2 64bit processors from the outside, at least that's what I have come to understand.

[viciouslime]

Actually, the Core 2 technology ties two 32bit processors, a la Nintendo64 gpu, to achieve a shared 64bit environment, so the extreme is really like 2 64bit processors from the outside, at least that's what I have come to understand.

...are you sure? :confused: I don't think tying two 32-bit cores together makes it possible to process 64 bits... else old dual cpu machines would be able to run 64bit stuff, no?

[saru411]

asus p5w dh + core 2 duo e6600 running 7.04 amd64

vostro 1500 + core 2 duo 5470 running 7.04 amd64


both run flawlessly with a little tweaking

[WishingWell]

I couldn't find a similar poll to this, apologies if there is one. I was just interested in how mnay people actually use their cpu to its "full potential". I have a 64bit cpu in both my laptop and desktop, but use only 32bit OSs. I am just installing 64bit feisty on my macbook as I type this. If it isn't too difficult to get things like flash going I might just keep it...

Unless you have a need for the memory that 64bits will allow you to use there is no good reason to use a 64bit OS, its not going to be faster, on the contrary, since 64 bits takes more memory (for obvious reasons) it will be slower since more data has to be transferred.

[WishingWell]

Actually, the Core 2 technology ties two 32bit processors, a la Nintendo64 gpu, to achieve a shared 64bit environment, so the extreme is really like 2 64bit processors from the outside, at least that's what I have come to understand.

Heh, no, it's four independent CPU's, you can't combine two 32 bit execution units to achieve 64 bits, the CPU needs to have 64 bit execution units to be able to process 64 bit code.

[rsambuca]

Unless you have a need for the memory that 64bits will allow you to use there is no good reason to use a 64bit OS, its not going to be faster, on the contrary, since 64 bits takes more memory (for obvious reasons) it will be slower since more data has to be transferred.

I have to disagree with you here. There are many areas where 64bit will be faster, and not because of high memory requirements. Try transcoding video or even just audio files and you will see the difference.

[shantzg001]

Unless you have a need for the memory that 64bits will allow you to use there is no good reason to use a 64bit OS, its not going to be faster, on the contrary, since 64 bits takes more memory (for obvious reasons) it will be slower since more data has to be transferred.

Now where did you read that? Any 64 bit system is bound to have atleast a 64 bit wide data bus, so it doesnt mean "more data" has to be transferred in case of 64 bit OS. If you use a 32 bit OS, the proc will run in compatibility mode and rest of the 32 bits will just go waste but transferring a 32 bit word in 32 bit os and 64 bit word in 64 bit OS would take essentially the same time. Infact, running a 64 bit OS means that recompiling a 32 bit app for 64 bit will also make u benefit from it. The only issues i can see are where:
1. Some apps are inherently unable to be ported over to 64 bit, and a simple recompilation also doesnt work.
2. Poorly coded apps that assume things like integer size, word size etc.

[PurposeOfReason]

Unless you have a need for the memory that 64bits will allow you to use there is no good reason to use a 64bit OS, its not going to be faster, on the contrary, since 64 bits takes more memory (for obvious reasons) it will be slower since more data has to be transferred.
Are you joking? Today I moved a few files from my Ubuntu partition to my Windows one using a flash drive. Ubuntu is 64bit, XP is 32. It took me 15 minutes to get the data (10GB) onto the flash drive with Ubuntu but a hour and a half to get it off using Windows. Which because they are different operating systems, times will vary, to that extreme I highly will say the 64bit made it much quicker.

Also, I haven't read this whole thread but I'm sure the issue of programs not being made for 64bit came up. I'll say right now that I have not had any problems getting anything for 64bit with a 64bit version. Minus Java, though flash was a sinch.

[hessiess]

i dont have a 64 bit posessor, but 64bit substantily decreses render times

[shantzg001]

@hessiess: and what makes you say that?

[helliewm]

I messed up my 32bit install on my Desktop so decided to give the 64bit Ubuntu version a try. It is very definitely much faster. It boots alot quicker. I really notice the difference so I have reinstalled the 64bit on my laptop too

[miggols99]

I do now :) It is much faster especially compiling stuff and booting is also much faster too. Java works fine, only had to "pacman -S jre" and for flash I use swfdec. Works for YouTube so I'm fine with it :)

[Andrewie]

I'm using a 32-bit copy of Windows And Linux, but starting next release opensuse is going to come with nspluginviewer so I'm just going to use that, which was my only 64-bit issue.

[viciouslime]

I'm using a 32-bit copy of Windows And Linux, but starting next release opensuse is going to come with nspluginviewer so I'm just going to use that, which was my only 64-bit issue.

Gutsy is also coming with nspluginwrapper :D

[PmDematagoda]

I have a 64bit processor but use 32bit Feisty and 32bitXP.

I really want to take advantage of the 64bit technology and am thinking of installing the 64bit of Gutsy when it comes out.:)

[anv]

Using 64-bit processor and 64-bit Feisty, For skype I use on earlier installation now and then,which is 32 bit feisty, I tried to install Skype once in 64 bit system and it went badly wrong...ok sorry for creating panic I found new guide : http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=432295&highlight=skype which made skype work under 64-bit Xubuntu. BTW blender renders app. 30% faster with 64-bit system than 32bit if anyone is interested to know, I made test with same hardware only difference were between 32/64 os. It might variate with different scenes but in this case it were so. I am absolutely waiting reasonable 64 bit flaptop for market which would receive Ubuntu and same time would have even good graphic card. If you know one send me a pm or answer here

[ShadowVlican]

i gotta AMD 64 3800+ X2 but still use 32bit OS whether windows or ubuntu

[conehead77]

I have a 64bit processor but use 32bit Feisty and 32bitXP.

I really want to take advantage of the 64bit technology and am thinking of installing the 64bit of Gutsy when it comes out.:)

This. Only 3 days to go! :guitar:

[happysmileman]

Voters: 666. You have already voted on this poll

Also some people (me) would like to have a 64-bit processor, so if you're going to get one and completely waste it's extra power, why don't you just exchange it for my 32-bit P4?

[LowSky]

I only use 32bit software because I like to make mirror images on my machine and install the images on other machines that may not have 64 bit capabilities..

[Ireclan]

I don't use 64 bit technology yet because I have no money, and wouldn't if I did because it's not industry standard yet.

[wdo_will]

I have a Core2Duo and could use Gutsy 64-bit if I wanted to... but I see no real reason to make everything that I compile incompatible with the rest of the world, and give up flash, etc. for a performance gain that is negligable at best.

[rsambuca]

I have a Core2Duo and could use Gutsy 64-bit if I wanted to... but I see no real reason to make everything that I compile incompatible with the rest of the world, and give up flash, etc. for a performance gain that is negligable at best.

This post is incorrect in several areas.

1. You don't have to give up flash with 64bit Ubuntu. It works very well.

2. Also, what do you mean by "incompatible with the rest of the world"? This doesn't really make any sense. If you save a document using a 64bit system, it will be perfectly compatible with the same program on someone's 32bit system.

3. What is it that you need to compile with 64bit Ubuntu? The number of 64bit packages in the repositories is almost the same as in the 32bit repositories.

4. Performance gains greater than 30% are quite common with certain applications using the 64bit system. Quite a bit more than negligible.

Rather than make posts like this that attempt to spread FUD, your time would be better spent learning how the 64bit environment has progressed.

[wdo_will]

This post is incorrect in several areas.

1. You don't have to give up flash with 64bit Ubuntu. It works very well.

2. Also, what do you mean by "incompatible with the rest of the world"? This doesn't really make any sense. If you save a document using a 64bit system, it will be perfectly compatible with the same program on someone's 32bit system.

3. What is it that you need to compile with 64bit Ubuntu? The number of 64bit packages in the repositories is almost the same as in the 32bit repositories.

4. Performance gains greater than 30% are quite common with certain applications using the 64bit system. Quite a bit more than negligible.

Rather than make posts like this that attempt to spread FUD, your time would be better spent learning how the 64bit environment has progressed.

Don't flame me... I guess I've just never really looked into it enough (or recently).

How is the Java support on 64-bit, by chance?

[rsambuca]

Don't flame me... I guess I've just never really looked into it enough (or recently).

How is the Java support on 64-bit, by chance?

Not flaming. Merely correcting your errors. Why post when you don't really know much about the topic?

[prince_niceguy]

I have 64bit processor but I use 32bit OS... I used to use 64 bit but some how the system wont remain up for more than a day. It would hang. Now I have moved to 32 bit and it is working pretty well. It is out of compulsion I had to use 32 bit not due to choice :-(... 64 bit is not stable compared to 32 bit. IMHO.

[Newuser1111]

I think I have a 64bit CPU but I only use 32bit OS/programs.

(An AMD Turion 64 x2 is 64-bit, right?)

[tuxxy]

I run only 64bit :guitar:

[cariboo]

I find 64bit so reliable that I have to screw something to make it crash just so I don't feel left out. I'm running Intrepid alpha3, even buggy software runs well.:)

Jim

[snakep]

I am currently running 64-bit Gutsy Gibbon. I installed 64-bit because I thought it was "cool" that I could run it, so I wanted to try it. I have had some difficulties with things like my wireless card, but it is working now. There are occasionally programs that I can't get for 64-bit, which is frustrating.

Now I am thinking about upgrading to 8.04, or perhaps 8.10 in a few months. However, I was considering switching to 32-bit. That would require a completely new install, right? However, there are some apps that I run that can perhaps benefit from 64-bit. For example, I do some CFD (computational fluid dynamics) on my PC, which is very CPU intensive. Now, after reading some things in this thread, I am thinking maybe I should stick with 64-bit. So here's another possibility: should I just get a second hard disk, and install the 32-bit OS on it? Would I be able to mount my current home directory?

Thanks for the advice.

Jeremiah

[grossaffe]

do you need another hard disk or would you be fine with just creating another partition?

[viciouslime]

I am currently running 64-bit Gutsy Gibbon. I installed 64-bit because I thought it was "cool" that I could run it, so I wanted to try it. I have had some difficulties with things like my wireless card, but it is working now. There are occasionally programs that I can't get for 64-bit, which is frustrating.

Now I am thinking about upgrading to 8.04, or perhaps 8.10 in a few months. However, I was considering switching to 32-bit. That would require a completely new install, right? However, there are some apps that I run that can perhaps benefit from 64-bit. For example, I do some CFD (computational fluid dynamics) on my PC, which is very CPU intensive. Now, after reading some things in this thread, I am thinking maybe I should stick with 64-bit. So here's another possibility: should I just get a second hard disk, and install the 32-bit OS on it? Would I be able to mount my current home directory?

Thanks for the advice.

Jeremiah

Computational fluid dynamics will definitely benefit from a 64 bit
environment. You could install a 32 bit version of ubuntu on a separate hard disk or separate partition and share a home directory, but would you really need to? The only thing I find to be a bit dodgy in a 64 bit environment now is flash, nspluginwrapper crashes quite a bit, but it's useable.

If you do have 32 bit and 64 bit sharing a home directory make sure you're using the same version of ubuntu for both, i.e. 32 bit intrepid and 64 bit intrepid, or 32 bit hardy and 64 bit hardy, otherwise you'll have different versions of programs accessing your config files (.folders) and if in later versions of the software something has changed in the config files when you boot the older OS it could well break something.

The best idea really would be to stick with 64 bit.

[regomodo]

I've never really used 64bit Ubuntu much but Debian, Slack, and gentoo amd64 has been good for me for almost 10months now. Flash was a bit of a pain to begin with (Debian Etch) but i've not had much problems since then.

[Delever]

I have 4GB of RAM and actually make use of it all now, so yes.

[billgoldberg]

My laptop is a 32bit processor.

My desktop is a Pentium D but I still run 32bit Ubuntu.

I only have 1gb of ram, so I don't think 64bit would be suited for me.

I might give it a go when Ibex comes out.

[nick09]

64bit only here.;)

@Newuser1111: The processor is 64bit hence the 64 in the name.

@billgoldberg: I have less than 1GB of ram and I have a 3200+ Athlon 64-bit processor.

[geoken]

Can a 64bit distro easily run 32bit apps? In Windows 64bit is completely painless because you can install 32bit apps just as easily as you'd install them on a 32bit system. Does it work the same in Linux? For example, if the 4bit version of app x had some issue could I just grab the deb for the 32bit version?

[Delever]

Can a 64bit distro easily run 32bit apps? In Windows 64bit is completely painless because you can install 32bit apps just as easily as you'd install them on a 32bit system. Does it work the same in Linux? For example, if the 4bit version of app x had some issue could I just grab the deb for the 32bit version?

On this 64-bit machine, I use 32-bit google earth, skype, celtx, wine (which runs only 32-bit windows applications), so i think yeah. You may need to get appropriate packages for that from repository, and when installing 32-bit application from .deb file, use "dpkg -i --force-architecture", but when done, everything is just fine.

[nick09]

On this 64-bit machine, I use 32-bit google earth, skype, celtx, wine (which runs only 32-bit windows applications), so i think yeah. You may need to get appropriate packages for that from repository, and when installing 32-bit application from .deb file, use "dpkg -i --force-architecture", but when done, everything is just fine.

I have a 32-bit Java running on my system so I can have a larger select of programs to use. The problem with 32-bit is the limitation of RAM and another thing but I don't remember what it was.

[doorknob60]

I have a 64 bit Proccessor and use 64 Bit Debian and 32 Bit WinXP, so I'd say I'm taking advantage of it.

[snakep]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll stick with 64-bit for now, after what I've read here. If I feel ambitious, I might add a second hard disk and put the same version of 32-bit on it.

[KWM987]

I use 64-bit mainly so I can have access to all my RAM, the faqct you can still run 32-bit apps on 64-bit makes seem pointless to me to work any other way, there are performance gains in certain tasks, but I would not criticize someone for deciding to stick with 32-bit for now.

[ruisu]

the only advantage of having 64bit processors is that we can do like 2 billions(im exaggerating) more of length on the operations and results, so its only good if your a physicist, or somebody that wants to be precise.

The advantage of most x2, 2x, duo, dual processors is that it can do more small time-needing processes at the time.

[rsambuca]

the only advantage of having 64bit processors is that we can do like 2 billions(im exaggerating) more of length on the operations and results, so its only good if your a physicist, or somebody that wants to be precise.
This just isn't true at all. 64bit is much faster for any cpu intensive tasks, such as video transcoding, or compiling. I transcode a lot of video from my capture card, and it is much quicker using 64bit (about 30% quicker). I am not a physicist :)

[defenestratos]

Sitting here listening to internet radio backing up an encrypted DVD and running three sessions with heaps of programs open like Office and Evolution, firefox. My computer is a crappy 64 bit laptop with full updates in 64 bit Hardy:) It doesn't get much better than this!!!

[jago25_98]

I think I shall stick to running the OS 32bit, and then using 64bit programs for anything intensive.

[Saint Angeles]

my pentium 4 uses hyperthreading when i use 32 bit. it tricks the OS into thinking there are 2 processors.

i tried running 64 bit instead and it was way slower.

[rsambuca]

I think I shall stick to running the OS 32bit, and then using 64bit programs for anything intensive.

That won't work. You can't run 64 bit programs on a 32bit OS.

[Crick]

I hate feeling like I have my system running less fast than it should do, which is why I run 64 bit hardy. Works fine. Come on in, the water's fine!

[SomeGuyDude]

I hate feeling like I have my system running less fast than it should do, which is why I run 64 bit hardy. Works fine. Come on in, the water's fine!

Arch64 was no faster than its 32-bit counterpart, ran warmer, and pulled more power. Not to mention the oodles of extra libraries I needed for my 32 bit apps.

I think for desktop systems that do some heavy work, 64-bit is great. For a laptopper that's basically my school and net-surfin' machine? No need.

[Laibcoms]

Yes, I have a 64bit processor and use both 64bit and 32bit OS/s


I use:
- GNU/Linux Ubuntu 64-bit
- Microsoft Windows XP 32-bit

Shared PC.


Once I have my new assembled machine, I will only put Ubuntu 64-bit ^_^

Embrace 64-bit now and be proud one day "I was there, I was a Pioneer of 64-bit, I helped it grow." :p

[Crick]

I think for desktop systems that do some heavy work, 64-bit is great. For a laptopper that's basically my school and net-surfin' machine? No need.
I didn't realize that the 64 bit version would use more power. Strange. I'll keep that in mind to test when I have a 64 bit laptop.

[NekoMaster]

(Damn, last post has been for monthes!)

Well if anyones around for this topic still I happen to take advantage of my AMD Atlhon 64 x2 5200+. With 4GB Hi Performance RAM its nice to have the little extra 200MB more then 3.2GB (bringing me up to 3.6GB since my video card uses shared memory)

Anyways I only just installed Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty) 64bit and so far its freaking awesome! THough the first time I booted it after the install it crashed, after that its running smoothly :D

Its a good idea to use the 64bit version of Ubuntu if you have a 64bit AMD cpu and need a OS that can boot quickly and loads stuff quick, as Ubuntu 9.04 64bit boots in like, less then 10 seconds! :D though totall boottime from a complete shutdown takes maybe 20 Seconds (Clear BIOS logo, BIOS Post Mssgs (if any), Bootmanager, Boot Screen, then the first bit of start up of ubuntu with the little sound fx) :)

So yeah if anyone has a 64bit CPU, go for it, there are usually many ways to get around things so dont worry too much about not being able to run programs right of the bat. 64bit OS'es will never fully progress if no one uses them! XD

[3Miro]

I have ben using both 32 and 64 bit because I needed 64-bit for work and couldn't get all the software running under it (flash mainly).

I don't have such problem anymore. Flash, Java and everything else runs great under 64-bit. For me there no point in using 32-bit anymore.

I have two 64-bit machines (laptop and desktop) and both run great (I even play 32-bit wine games and those run fine).

[wolfen69]

Flash, Java and everything else runs great under 64-bit. For me there no point in using 32-bit anymore.


i agree. my system has never run better. 64 bit is finally ready for everyone to use. seems a bit more stable too.

[NightwishFan]

I use 64-bit mainly because widespread use of 64-bit is poor on Windows, and I am not sure how many programs actually take advantage of it.

One more thing I have and they don't :)

[zenithdave]

Installed 64 bit Jaunty 2 weeks ago often forget it's running a beta!

Virtual box with XP inside and CPU is still only running 45% of capacity with XP streaming and recording music.

It's really smooth.

ETA Jaunty seems to be doing a great job of load balancing and scaling the CPU in my limited knowledge?

[adamlau]

I use 64 on 64, 32 on the rest.

[SomeGuyDude]

Same computer, Arch64 with ext4 filesystems. Loving it.

[kk0sse54]

I used to run both, installed Gentoo and NetBSD 32 bit and then installed 64 bit Arch and decided there was no reason not to use 64bit but I don't feel like reinstalling just so that I can change over ;)

[gatorbrit]

I use the 64 bit stata (statistical software) and I can access all the RAM I have on my mother board, not just the first 2GB using a 64 bit OS

[speedwell68]

I did use 64 bit exclusively up until 8.04. Both my laptop and desktop are 64 bit, but I got knarky with things just not being supported properly. I might give 64 bit a go when Jaunty comes out in a few hours time.

[AndyCooll]

I've been using 32-bit until recently, mainly because that was what I've always used in the past. Have begun to switch to 64-bit where possible.

:cool:

[LateNiteTV]

i use 32bit everything on my 64 bit systems. enable smp and youre good to go and dont have to worry about kernel limitations in freebsd.

[Brian_the_King]

I dual boot Vista Home Premium x64 and Jaunty amd64 without any problems or compatibility issues.. of course I have to use a decent number of x86 applications :p

[FuturePilot]

I jumped on the 64bit bandwagon a couple weeks ago and I'm loving it. Now that there's native 64bit Flash and Java plugins and just about everything else, I see no point in sticking to 32bit on a 64bit machine. Get the most out of your hardware. I always see the question "why use 64bit?". I think it should be "why not use 64bit?"

64bit all the way! :guitar:

[mamamia88]

amd 64 processor here use i386 version of jaunty everything seems fine to me. i would but this laptop can't hold more than 2gb ram

[FuturePilot]

amd 64 processor here use i386 version of jaunty everything seems fine to me. i would but this laptop can't hold more than 2gb ram

I'm using 64bit on my laptop and it only has 2GB of RAM. Having 4GB+ of RAM is not the only reason or advantage to using a 64bit OS.

[Bobnova]

I've used XP32 for a long time, tried 8.10 32bit and wasn't very impressed, then decided i'd give 9.04 RC(1?) 64bit a shot for giggles.
Mainly because for the first time i have a 64bit chip (built myself a core2duo system last month) with more then 3gb of ram (4, to be exact).

I actually really like it, i definitely prefer it to 8.10 32bit on the same box, though i couldn't tell you exactly why. It might just be that i'm getting used to it again (i ran redhat back in the late 90's), or it might be better.
Either way i haven't had any compatibility issues 64/32 bit wise, though i had to muck with Wold of Goo a bit to get it to work.

Course being a beta/rc thing it did completely crumble into dust when i tried to switch to kubuntu desktop on it, that forced a wipe and reinstall. The drivers for my video card had installation issues too, but i have no idea if that is 64bit related or not.

I do like seeing more then 3.4gb of ram, that's fun. Strangely ubuntu64 only reports 3.8gigs, donno why. I've yet to use more then 1.2 anyway.

[ubuntu27]

I wish I can change what I voted months before.

We need to create a new poll.

Many of us (including me) have jumped on the 64-bit bandwagon with Ubuntu 9.04.

[sim-value]

My ATI drivers are always failing me on 64 bit :argh:

[wolfen69]

Strangely ubuntu64 only reports 3.8gigs, donno why.

that's because in reality, it is only 3.8gb. it's because of the way manufacturers report how much it is. but it really is less as far as the OS is concerned. look at your hard drive size. it will be less than what you thought you were getting.

[hashan17]

The problem we have is to find suitable forware for the 64-bit OS. It's so hard on Windows platforms.... But thanks to Ubuntu & other linux OSs we now have the golden chance of experiencing the real 64-bit performance....

[Eisenwinter]

I have a 64bit processor, and out of ideology I only use 64bit operating systems.

[lisati]

Since voting on the poll, I have discovered that my desktop is 64-bit capable (if only a single core), and I installed 64-bit Ubuntu on one laptop (the other is 32-bit, and forget the Win98 machine hiding under my desk)

[NightwishFan]

Use puppy or dsl in the Win98 machine and give it to a young relative. It will be surprisingly usable. (I say puppy because it works well and is surprisingly "cool".) Although the new one seems way fatter.

[mamamia88]

I'm using 64bit on my laptop and it only has 2GB of RAM. Having 4GB+ of RAM is not the only reason or advantage to using a 64bit OS.

what might some other reasons be out of curiousity? i might give it a go next release if there is enough reason but 32 bit is running great for me

[NightwishFan]

Essentially, you will see some cpu performance increase at the expense of some extra RAM used. (Not to much more used, just a bit).



FROM WIKIPEDIA:

Architectural features

The primary defining characteristic of AMD64 is the availability of 64-bit general purpose registers, 64-bit integer arithmetic and logical operations, and 64-bit virtual addresses. The designers took the opportunity to make other improvements as well. The most significant changes include:

* 64-bit integer capability: All general-purpose registers (GPRs) are expanded from 32 bits to 64 bits, and all arithmetic and logical operations, memory-to-register and register-to-memory operations, etc. can now operate directly on 64-bit integers. Pushes and pops on the stack are always in 8-byte strides, and pointers are 8 bytes wide.

* Additional registers: In addition to increasing the size of the general-purpose registers, the number of named general-purpose registers is increased from eight (i.e. eax,ebx,ecx,edx,ebp,esp,esi,edi) in x86-32 to 16. It is therefore possible to keep more local variables in registers rather than on the stack, and to let registers hold frequently accessed constants; arguments for small and fast subroutines may also be passed in registers to a greater extent. However, AMD64 still has fewer registers than many common RISC processors (which typically have 32–64 registers) or VLIW-like machines such as the IA-64 (which has 128 registers).

* Additional XMM (SSE) registers: Similarly, the number of 128-bit XMM registers (used for Streaming SIMD instructions) is also increased from 8 to 16.

* Larger virtual address space: Current processor models implementing the AMD64 architecture can address up to 256 TB (281,474,976,710,656 bytes)[4] of virtual address space. This limit can be raised in future implementations to 16 EB (18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bytes). This is compared to just 4 GB (4,294,967,296 bytes) for 32-bit x86. This means that very large files can be operated on by mapping the entire file into the process' address space (which is sometimes faster than working with file read/write calls), rather than having to map regions of the file into and out of the address space.

* Larger physical address space: Current implementations of the AMD64 architecture can address up to 1 TB (1,099,511,627,776 bytes) of RAM; the architecture permits extending this to 4 PB (4,503,599,627,370,496 bytes) in the future (limited by the page table entry format). In legacy mode, Physical Address Extension (PAE) is included, as it is on most current 32-bit x86 processors, allowing access to a maximum of 64 GB (68,719,476,736 bytes).

* Instruction pointer relative data access: Instructions can now reference data relative to the instruction pointer (RIP register). This makes position independent code, as is often used in shared libraries and code loaded at run time, more efficient.

* SSE instructions: The original AMD64 architecture adopted Intel's SSE and SSE2 as core instructions. SSE3 instructions were added in April 2005. SSE2 replaces the x87 instruction set's IEEE 80-bit precision with the choice of either IEEE 32-bit or 64-bit floating-point mathematics. This provides floating-point operations compatible with many other modern CPUs. The SSE and SSE2 instructions have also been extended to operate on the eight new XMM registers. SSE and SSE2 are available in 32-bit mode in modern x86 processors; however, if they're used in 32-bit programs, those programs will only work on systems with processors that have the feature. This is not an issue in 64-bit programs, as all AMD64 processors have SSE and SSE2, so using SSE and SSE2 instructions instead of x87 instructions does not reduce the set of machines on which x64 programs can be run. SSE and SSE2 are generally faster than, and duplicate most of the features of, the traditional x87 instructions, MMX, and 3DNow!.

* No-Execute bit: The "NX" bit (bit 63 of the page table entry) allows the operating system to specify which pages of virtual address space can contain executable code and which cannot. An attempt to execute code from a page tagged "no execute" will result in a memory access violation, similar to an attempt to write to a read-only page. This should make it more difficult for malicious code to take control of the system via "buffer overrun" or "unchecked buffer" attacks. A similar feature has been available on x86 processors since the 80286 as an attribute of segment descriptors; however, this works only on an entire segment at a time. Segmented addressing has long been considered an obsolete mode of operation, and all current PC operating systems in effect bypass it, setting all segments to a base address of 0 and a size of 4 GB (4,294,967,296 bytes). AMD was the first x86-family vendor to implement no-execute in linear addressing mode. The feature is also available in legacy mode on AMD64 processors, and recent Intel x86 processors, when PAE is used.

* Removal of older features: A number of "system programming" features of the x86 architecture are not used in modern operating systems and are not available on AMD64 in long (64-bit and compatibility) mode. These include segmented addressing (although the FS and GS segments are retained in vestigial form for use as extra base pointers to operating system structures)[5], the task state switch mechanism, and Virtual 8086 mode. These features do of course remain fully implemented in "legacy mode," thus permitting these processors to run 32-bit and 16-bit operating systems without modification.

[will1911a1]

I have a 64 bit CPU and run a 64 bit OS.

[RandomJoe]

Hm... Just found my post from some time ago in this thread. At that point (and still at the moment) I was running 32 bit.

But, perhaps I'm about ready to try 64 bit. My Core 2 Duo machine spends most of its time now crunching on video of one type or another, a performance boost wouldn't hurt.

The most intriguing though is my desktop Atom machine. I just realized that it is 64-bit too. Wonder if it might see any benefit... Might just have to give it a go.

Looking through Wikipedia for processor info, I was surprised to see that some P4s were actually 64-bit-capable, I thought that was a Core thing. (Or maybe I just forgot - it's been a long while and I regularly suffer from CRS... :lolflag: ) Checked my two P4 machines, and one missed having 64-bit by one stepping! Oh well...

[FuturePilot]

Hm... Just found my post from some time ago in this thread. At that point (and still at the moment) I was running 32 bit.

But, perhaps I'm about ready to try 64 bit. My Core 2 Duo machine spends most of its time now crunching on video of one type or another, a performance boost wouldn't hurt.

The most intriguing though is my desktop Atom machine. I just realized that it is 64-bit too. Wonder if it might see any benefit... Might just have to give it a go.

Looking through Wikipedia for processor info, I was surprised to see that some P4s were actually 64-bit-capable, I thought that was a Core thing. (Or maybe I just forgot - it's been a long while and I regularly suffer from CRS... :lolflag: ) Checked my two P4 machines, and one missed having 64-bit by one stepping! Oh well...

Yep, some of the later P4 Prescotts were 64bit. I have one of them :D

[pbpersson]

I have 4 64-bit machines in the house.

All the Ubuntu machines are running 64-bit

When I bought Vista Ultimate I got a special deal through work but they only had 32-bit which is fine. I don't really trust Microsoft enough to try their 64-bit version.

I never turn on the Vista machine because.....well, it is Vista. I only bought it to try Vista and to have here for the 00.10% of web sites that will not work with Linux and also to test software I am developing.

I am planning to install a 64-bit version of Ubuntu on there when I really need another machine here so that 64-bit machine will not go to waste.

[OutOfReach]

Everything 64-bit here

[cubeist]

I have been running 64-bit for a long time, 2 years at least, or maybe even longer. I can't think of a time that I have had specific problems caused only by using a 64 bit OS.


64 Bit is not some scary monster. It should be the norm, and it will be the future.

[jordanp123]

Running 64Bit Jaunty here.

AMD Phenom 2.8 Ghz.
6 Gigs of Ram.

[stanca]

Since june last years I'm running only 64bit linux distros when it's possible.This is the near future alredy,in just few years we'll be talking about 128bit systems.:popcorn:
Amd Athlon 3000 64,2.0 Ghz overclocked of course.:lolflag:

[Bobnova]

that's because in reality, it is only 3.8gb. it's because of the way manufacturers report how much it is. but it really is less as far as the OS is concerned. look at your hard drive size. it will be less than what you thought you were getting.

I was hoping ram people were more honest then storage people. So much for that.

[neoflight]

I do not see any compelling reason to use 64b applications. I use a PAE kernel to access the ram above 4gb.

Earlier, I did a comparison (personal study) on 32b and 64b applications that I use frequently and I did not see any significant difference in performance.

:)

[aaaantoine]

Using Arch64 & Windows XP 32-bit.

[yurx cherio]

It is year 2009, everything is progressing, 32bit is slowly fading into the past, the only thing that some of us need to upgrade is mentality :)

I have been running 64 bit Hardy, Intrepid, Jaunty. On either of them I had no problems. All codecs work, flash is working fine, virtualization is a breeze ... I am not sure if nowdays one can find an app in 32 bit repository which is not in 64 bit or can't run on 64 bit distro.

[HappyFeet]

I do not see any compelling reason to use 64b applications.

My compelling reason is speed. It is noticeably faster for me. That, coupled with ext4, equals blazing fast computing.

[BslBryan]

This is something that I laugh at constantly, but it turns out that until very recently it never clicked that I have a 64 bit processor. This, of course, was after I'd been running 32-bit Ubuntu for quite some time, so for now I think I'm sticking with it. I will upgrade sooner or later, as I do think it's the near future norm, but I'm happy where I am at the moment. :-)

[ranch hand]

When we bought this box it had Vista on it and 2 cpus disabled so it ran on 32 with 2x2.40GHz.

I like running with 4x2.40GHz. It is much better.

I do like to get both versions of OSs to see the differenc in them and when I update I just disable the 64 and go to 32 for those versions, that way I don't end up with 64bit kernals on 32bit versions.

There is not much difference. All the 32s run fine on 64. They are certainly livelier on 64 due to having 2x the cpu available.

64 is the future, though, and the stuff I use the most is all 64, including my production partition with Hardy (for LTS) on it.

[redcharlie]

Too many things broken in AMD 64bit (Hardy):
1) Can't use Firepass VPN (f5 networks browser VPN client fails to install)
2) VNC broken (I fixed it on Hardy but it involved hours of research and re-compiling, then Update Manager always wants to re-install it, undoing everything!! sheesh)
3) Can't buy Amazon MP3's!
4) I had to hack the Citrix client by installing 32bit libs

So, still a bit too painful for me to go w/o a 32 bit install for normal use.

I've got a dual boot 64bit Hardy/ 32bit Jaunty on a 2.3GHz AMD Brisbane dual with 2GB mem, fast enough for me in 32 bit mode. I haven't noticed any speed difference between the two.

I haven't tried Jaunty 64bit, but since most of the issues above are not the fault of the kernel (just waiting for somebody to convert their code to 64bit) they won't be fixed by upgrading.

[itreius]

64-bit processor, 64-bit OS

[oldos2er]

"Can't buy Amazon MP3's!"

Sure you can, you just need http://code.google.com/p/clamz/

[Keithhed]

I downgraded from Jaunty to Intrepid. MOBO compatibility issues? too buggy. 64 intrepid is great. no complaints. I guess the question really shoul be is when are more programs going to take advantage of multi threaded computing. (sorry if it has been posted already)

[lisati]

I wish to correct my vote: I use both 32 and 64 bit processors and I use both 32 and 64-bit OSes

[terabyte1]

I have two computers - one is dual core with 8 gig of memory which I've switched permanently to 64-bit the other is only 32-bit. The speed my 64-bit PC runs at now is like Warp Speed on the USS Excellsior (Star Trek)! I switched to 64-bit when I moved up to version 8.10, since then its like fast. When I close down, it switches off in 8 seconds. When I switch on, its at the log-in screen from switch on in 12 seconds - how fast is that?:lolflag:

[terabyte1]

I also believe that when we move up to the Karmic Koala (9.10), we will not only have 'The Cloud' to think about but also the journaling of Ext4 - which is even faster still (Eat your heart out Bill Gates - we got the best PC ever now)!:guitar::lolflag:

[pwnst*r]

64-bit processor, 64-bit OS

^

[Gatemaze]

Recently changed my hardy 32bit to hardy 64bit. In terms of applications i could find all that i needed for the 64bit. In terms of stability, they are both stable. In terms of performance I think there are very close... Maybe it will make a difference when I will need to use all 4 gigs of RAM.

[rookcifer]

Why do so many people erroneously believe that a 64 bit OS can't run 32 bit apps? If you have a 64 bit CPU, you should be using a 64 bit OS. Period.

[ParanoidMetroid]

Why do so many people erroneously believe that a 64 bit OS can't run 32 bit apps? If you have a 64 bit CPU, you should be using a 64 bit OS. Period.

It's not that simple. Some third party programs (not available in the standard repositories) are difficult to run under 64 bit OS. Not everyone has the time or the aptitude to fight with these programs. Besides, many people with with a 64 bit machine won't notice any real benefit from using a 64 bit OS. It all depends on what the user needs and doesn't need.

[Dark Aspect]

I am using a 64-bit OS with less than 4 GB of ram and I use mostly 64-bit applications. With the only real exception being wine and running 32-bit windows apps. So you tell me, am I actually taking advantage of 64-bit? or do I need more ram for it to really mean anything?

[RiceMonster]

both my laptop and desktop have 64 bit processors. My desktop runs 64 bit Linux, but my laptop runs 32 bit.

[ranch hand]

If nothing else, 4 cpus are nice for running Boinc, 4 work units at once.

[drooze]

I think one of the reasons ubuntu users aren't all running 64bit os's, is because ubuntu (and most other distro's as well) need so little memory.

for normal computing tasks, you rarely need more than 3gigs of ram.

Things are differend in the windows world...

[brian183]

I remember someone saying "No one will ever need more then 64k of memory." (or something along those lines) around the dawn of the personal computing age. Either Jobs or Gates or some other important figure at the time said that.



for normal computing tasks, you rarely need more than 3gigs of ram.

[-grubby]

My last computer had a 64-bit processor, and so does this one. I still use 32-bit OSs though.

[MikeTheC]

"Take advantage of"? In what sense? I mean, do I cheat it? No, I don't cheat it. Do I cheat *on* it? Well, yes, but with another 64 bit CPU, so I'm not sure that counts.

So yes, I guess I do take advantage of my 64 bit processor.

It's sad, really.

[sloggerkhan]

All of my CPUs are AMD 64 bit except for an intel atom. I think I run 64 bit on all of them... I have 4 gigs of RAM in my desktop so using 64 bit is the most convenient option. Having 4 gigs of RAM is useful for editing large images.
Though I don't see a reason not to use 64 bit if you have a 64 bit CPU.

[MikeTheC]

Well, my Intel and AMD systems usually like to fight with one another kind of like kids on the playground do.

It's a dreadful mess cleaning up all that dirt and dried mud in my computer room!

[AoSteve]

I won't run 32-bit OS's anymore. I've noticed that applications that I use from the original 32-bit OS's I had when I got them never seem to have much problem, even when they crash in windows...

[AeroG33k]

Can somebody clarify the relationship between RAM and 64bit vs. 32bit? I hear that 64bit makes more sense with more RAM (which would make sense to me), but I also hear a lot of knowledgeable people dispute that, at least that it's not a dramatic factor.

I have an older system (not my main system) that I built from spare/surplus parts (2.2GHz AMD64 Single Core, 1GB RAM) that is currently running 32bit jaunty, but now that it sounds like most apps work just fine in 64bit, I'd like to make the switch...if that makes sense with only 1 gig of ram...?

[quazi]

I have 6 GB of ram in my desktop, so everything I run is 64-bit. Being able to throw 2GB at Virtualbox is a wonderful thing.

[Cortux]

I see that apps are available of late and less complaints of them not being available.

I would like to know, for a normal user like myself.

1. Would I be able to install a 64bit OS on a Dell E6400, Core 2 duo 2.4 with 4gigs RAM.

2. What noticable differences would there be in performance.

3. I currently have a dual boot system, XP and Jaunty 32 bit. Would it just install easily over the current Jaunty.

Any advise on Pros and Cons would also be appreciated.

Thanks

[tuxxy]

1. Would I be able to install a 64bit OS on a Dell E6400, Core 2 duo 2.4 with 4gigs RAM.

2. What noticable differences would there be in performance.

3. I currently have a dual boot system, XP and Jaunty 32 bit. Would it just install easily over the current Jaunty.

Thanks

1. Yes
2. Much better performance in native 64-bit applications for example video, picture editing and also number crunching
3.Yes it would

[fela]

Using 64 bit is a non issue for me, as I need it to take advantage of my 4GB of RAM.

I use 32 bit windows though, when I use windows 0.4% of the time. 0.6% of the time I use Ubuntu karmic, 99% Intrepid ibex. :D

I haven't even thought about using 32 bit Linux on this computer, ever.

[fela]

I have 6 GB of ram in my desktop, so everything I run is 64-bit. Being able to throw 2GB at Virtualbox is a wonderful thing.

I used to have 6GB, before I decided enough was enough and gave away 2GB to my server. That was desperately lacking with just 512MB RAM. Now it has 2GB. Think the cat ran away with the extra 512MB stick :lol:

[Cortux]

1. Yes
2. Much better performance in native 64-bit applications for example video, picture editing and also number crunching
3.Yes it would


I know it would be sort of a fresh install, would there be any differences in hardware issues and compatibility in the 64bit, though I know I would have to initially tweak some stuff for eg. audio. like in my initial 32bit installation.

And where could I get the 64bit CD from, I cant find the option for requesting it on the Ubuntu Website.

One more thing, Will I be able to backup and reuse, my settings, like themes and programs.

[Cortux]

Using 64 bit is a non issue for me, as I need it to take advantage of my 4GB of RAM.

I use 32 bit windows though, when I use windows 0.4% of the time. 0.6% of the time I use Ubuntu karmic, 99% Intrepid ibex. :D

I haven't even thought about using 32 bit Linux on this computer, ever.


Do you mean the 32 bit does not access all the 4gigs (not that I ever use it) maybe someday

[nerdopolis]

I have all 32 bit processors. But I DID manage to get a 64 bit OS running (in QEMU)

[fela]

Do you mean the 32 bit does not access all the 4gigs (not that I ever use it) maybe someday

No. A 32 bit OS can only address up to 2^32 bytes of data in memory (which is 4gigs in case you're wondering). This includes all memory, such as: video memory (the main culprit after main memory); PCI device memory, etc. Your video card is almost always pretty much all the memory except your main memory, so to work out roughly how much ram you can access if you have 4gigs with a 32 bit os, a good rule of thumb is to minus your graphics memory from your main memory. This gives 3.5GB for me as I have a 512MB graphics card.

[lisati]

Can I change my vote? When I voted, I though I had only 32-bit processors in my machines but was mistaken.

I currently use both 64-bit and 32-bit OSes

[tuxxy]

I know it would be sort of a fresh install, would there be any differences in hardware issues and compatibility in the 64bit, though I know I would have to initially tweak some stuff for eg. audio. like in my initial 32bit installation.

And where could I get the 64bit CD from, I cant find the option for requesting it on the Ubuntu Website.

One more thing, Will I be able to backup and reuse, my settings, like themes and programs.

No differences in hardware and compatibility, nearly all applications now have a native 64-bit plugin. You can download the 64-bit ISO from the main website here (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download)as normal but you select the 64-bit check box near the bottom of the page.

If you would like to save all your settings/configs so when you fresh install all you need to do is download the software you want then I suggest moving your current /home to its own partition and then give this the mount point of /home at your new 64-bit installation. Here is a good guide on how to do that :D

http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/separatehome

[benmoran]

I vote that we start a new thread: 2009 edition. The results are very skewed because of all the 2007~ votes. Things are VERY different now in 2009. Most of the issues posted in the first pages of this thread no longer have relevance.

[cariboo]

+1 start new threads with a link to the older one.

[LookTJ]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1251721