Linux 64bit - why not universal?

[LK_gandalf_]

Hi all :wink:
I use ubuntu since a year, and I'd like to spread this operative system to my friends and other people. I've tried it, with some success and with other case failed.

Now, the point is: MacOs is at 64bit since a loooot of time, and we know how they are proud for this. Very produt :mad:(and quite boring)
Vista/XP is still 32bit on all the machine we can buy, but I think in a years they'll start to install the 64bit by default. I hope.

What about linux and ubuntu?? I've tried a 64bit version for some month, but it's still very marginal, there is very little support, and I really can't understand this.

We should have 64bit version as the MAIN version, and 32bit as the marginal version, with its poor and little secondary forum. (I joke :))

Why the developers of Ubuntu and other distro don't start to present the 64bit version as the main version? Since some years all the cpu support the 64bit, so the time has come.

We could add a new good reason to install linux to our friends: Improved performance, better than we already have with Linux respect to Vista/XP.

[hyper_ch]

I've tried a 64bit version for some month, but it's still very marginal, there is very little support, and I really can't understand this.

What is missing/not working on *buntu 64bit?

[LaRoza]

Why the developers of Ubuntu and other distro don't start to present the 64bit version as the main version? Since some years all the cpu support the 64bit, so the time has come.


Simple. Because 64 bit processors aren't the majority.

[miggols99]

Mostly all computers being sold nowadays have 64bit processors, and Intel have stopped making 32bit processors for a long time...

I'm running 64bit, and have had absolutely no problems with it...and it's much faster than 32bit too ;)

[LaRoza]

Mostly all computers being sold nowadays have 64bit processors, and Intel have stopped making 32bit processors for a long time...

I'm running 64bit, and have had absolutely no problems with it...and it's much faster than 32bit too ;)

Yes, but my statement is still true. Hint: not everyone has a new computer. Many people are still running "ancient" computers, more than you would think are still running pre Windows XP.

[hyper_ch]

Many people are still running "ancient" computers

/me is one of those many people ;)

[Ocxic]

I've been using 64-bit Ubuntu for about a year now, haven't had any problems at all.

and all of Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro's do not have 64 bit processors in them, if you want 64-b it from Apple you'll need to buy a Mac Pro desktop computer. I should know I work for apple.

[LK_gandalf_]

I know there are computer at 32bit too, and they need the right support, of course.
But I find very strange that the 64bit version is not the standard and main version, while the 32bit should have the "limited space" (on the forum and on the wikis, to understand) the 64bit have actually.
Just reverse the role.

[LaRoza]

I know there are computer at 32bit too, and they need the right support, of course.
But I find very strange that the 64bit version is not the standard and main version, while the 32bit should have the "limited space" (on the forum and on the wikis, to understand) the 64bit have actually.
Just reverse the role.
The 64 bit forum is for 64 bit specific problems. There are stil some problemsl with getting some things to work in 64 bit, although the 64 bit version itself is fine.

It isn't that all 64 bit Ubuntu users must use that one forum, it is for 64 bit specific problems.


/me is one of those many people ;)

So will I (I am getting an old used comuter soon)

[NightwishFan]

Although 64bit is great, Linux is still able to run on older hardware and I support that. What would I do if I suddenly lost my computers and I was forced to use my old pc that came with WindowsMe? (Happily running Puppy at the moment)

[x0as]

and all of Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro's do not have 64 bit processors in them, if you want 64-b it from Apple you'll need to buy a Mac Pro desktop computer. I should know I work for apple.

core2duo macbook & macbook pro are 64bit, do you work in an apple shop ?:lolflag:

[LaRoza]

core2duo macbook & macbook pro are 64bit, do you work in an apple shop ?

Yes, but not all Macbooks have them. Some do, but not all.

[gn2]

Yes, but not all Macbooks have them. Some do, but not all.

Thought all Macbooks ever built have had Core 2 Duo CPU's?

[x0as]

Yes, but not all Macbooks have them. Some do, but not all.

Hence why I said core2duo, the early 32bit MB & MBP were coreduo.

[LaRoza]

Thought all Macbooks ever built have had Core 2 Duo CPU's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook

Core Duo != Core 2 Duo

[LaRoza]

and all of Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro's do not have 64 bit processors in them, if you want 64-b it from Apple you'll need to buy a Mac Pro desktop computer. I should know I work for apple.

Ocxic states not all MacBook's have 64 bit processors, that he/she works for Apple.


core2duo macbook & macbook pro are 64bit, do you work in an apple shop ?:lolflag:

You state that the MacBooks with Core 2 Duos are 64 bit (which is true), but doubt that the person works for Apple.


Yes, but not all Macbooks have them. Some do, but not all.

I state that not all of them have Core 2 Duo's and some are 32 bit, the original statement is true, that was doubted.


Hence why I said core2duo, the early 32bit MB & MBP were coreduo.

You show that you know this, why did you doubt that Ocxic works for Apple? The statements were true.

[x0as]

Ocxic states not all MacBook's have 64 bit processors, that he/she works for Apple.


Not how I read it,


if you want 64-b it from Apple you'll need to buy a Mac Pro desktop computer

Makes it sound like none of the MB or MBP have 64bit.

[gn2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook



That's what I love about these forums, you learn new stuff all the time. :-)

[LaRoza]

Makes it sound like none of the MB or MBP have 64bit.

All the Mac Pros do have 64 bit, perhaps that is what was meant.


That's what I love about these forums, you learn new stuff all the time. :-)

It is a weird naming scheme, as they are not alike.

[gn2]

It is a weird naming scheme, as they are not alike.

Yes, the naming scheme of recent Intel CPU's is so convoluted it's hard to know where you are sometimes.

Celeron D not dual core at all and totally different to:
Celeron Dual-Core

Core Solo
Core Duo
Core 2 Solo
Core 2 Duo

Pentium D: hot hot hot! Well high TDP anyway.....
Pentium Duo: name only lasted for a few months, not in any way related to Pentium D
Pentium Duo became: Pentium Dual-Core which is really a Core 2 Duo minus some cache.

Then there's Core 2 Quad, why not call them Core 4?

It's all very baffling but Wikipedia has useful lists to refer to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_microprocessors#Core_Duo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_Dual-Core_microprocessors

[LaRoza]

Yes, the naming scheme of recent Intel CPU's is so convoluted it's hard to know where you are sometimes.

Pentium D: hot hot hot! Well high TDP anyway.....
Pentium Duo: name only lasted for a few months, not in any way related to Pentium D
Pentium Duo became: Pentium Dual-Core which is really a Core 2 Duo minus some cache.

Then there's Core 2 Quad, why not call them Core 4?

It's all very baffling but Wikipedia has useful lists to refer to.


I have a Pentium D 820. It doesn't run hot, for me anyway. (I know, I have used a IR thermometer on it while it was running.) The Pentiums are a hot power hungry CPU family though. The Core 2's are a big improvement (one is in my laptop)

Wikipedia is my main source of info for these type of questions.

[gn2]

Wikipedia is my main source of info for these type of questions.


Me too, it's impossible to keep up with all the subtle variations in CPU's bearing the same identity.
It's funny how quickly you start to find a fast CPU becoming slow as you grow accustomed to it.
When I went from an Athlon XP2100 to a Core 2 Duo E6300 it was a total transformation and I was amazed at what it could do and how fast it could do it all.
Now I'm starting to find it a bit slow.

As for my laptop, it has a Pentium III 500mhz and I am astonished at how well it performs with the likes of Xubuntu 7.04 or Zenwalk 4.8
I'm more patient with it as it's getting old now and senior citizens deserve some respect.

The old laptop doesn't seem to like the newer 7.10 or Zenwalk 5.0 quite as much sadly, must be stuck in it's ways.

So there's one good reason why 64-bit shouldn't be universal just yet, some folks like me are still using eight year old hardware that functions perfectly well.

[LK_gandalf_]

I don't say to abandone the 32bit project....just that the 64bit should be at the same level of support (a must), or little higher (optional).
When you buy a Linux's magazine, it are based always on the 32bit version, and it rarely writes down the 64bit repository or links, just to do an examples.

So, the 64bit version shouldn't have problems with flash, other software where you don't find the 64bit version (internet is full of this examples), and no hardware drivers or limitation.
That's all

[insane_alien]

linux supports the widest variety of hardware, i still have a 32bit server in my house, why shouldn't it get an uptodate OS.

and since linux is opensource it is trivial to recompile. might as well give people the option.

[gn2]

So, the 64bit version shouldn't have problems with flash,

It doesn't.
If you use Kilz' install script in the stickied thread on the 64-bit forum then it works perfectly.

[Perfect Storm]

It doesn't.
If you use Kilz' install script in the stickied thread on the 64-bit forum then it works perfectly.

or in 8.04 just install non-flash from medibuntu and you're running.

[JAPrufrock]

I'm running 64bit Gutsy on my AMD. It works just fine. All the apps work fine, either in a 64 bit or 32bit environment (like flash). Here's the thing- MS is way behind Ubuntu in the development of the 64bit OS. That's why they're still promoting 32bit XP and Vista. Apple is way ahead because they produce both the software and the hardware. So right now Apple seems to be winning the war in the battle of the 64 bit machine. They are also cutting into MS's market share, on the high end. And Gnu/Linux is cutting into MS's market share on the low end, providing OSs for machines like Asus' eee. For an excellent article, albeit an old one (2006), on the battle for the 64 bit machine check this out. (http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html)

[toupeiro]

I've been running 64-bit linux for quite some time and I must say I am overall very happy with the level of functionality I get, although admittedly I think some things require a bit more hands-on tweaking to work than they should that would make the average user turn away from using 64-bit linux.

I guess the one and only minus delta I have about Ubuntu64 specifically is that I do not understand some of the work you must do to to use 32-bit library dependent software in ubuntu. I maintain a few hundred RHEL systems (64 and 32 bit in the same environment using apps over NFS and autmounting) and I just don't have near as many problems with backwards compatibility than I have with Ubuntu. Isolate the libraries (lib32 and lib64) using softlinks for version control. Thats just one of many ways to get access to the right libraries you need. You can also set runtime environment variables in the application startup sequence to use the 32-bit dll paths on 64-bit systems. It can be done, I do it quite often, and it can be done so the deb package creates the operating environment, not the user. (I've done it with RPM packages and scripted installations)

Aptitude is smart enough that if I want to pull down Amarok, it knows every single dependency package I need. Why can't the same be done for 32-bit exclusive application dependencies? (EDIT: Note the usage of 'exclusive'. I'm fully aware of the number of 32-bit applications that can run in place on 64-bit Operating Systems, but exclusive means there is a arch-type specific library dependency, typically found in a location outside of the applications working directories.)

Short of that one aspect, I think 64-bit ubuntu is a very good distro, and has one of the largest 64-bit software repositories of any distro. (Granted I haven't seen fedora's lately, but I have seen RHEL5's" I just believe the tools are already there which would allow that software library to be vastly expanded by 32-bit software that would work fine in a 64-bit environment with some small modifications to the applications environment and dependency list.

[LK_gandalf_]

I've been running 64-bit linux for quite some time and I must say I am overall very happy with the level of functionality I get, although admittedly I think some things require a bit more hands-on tweaking to work than they should that would make the average user turn away from using 64-bit linux.

Yes this is the point. I've installed Kubuntu to 4 friends who have never seen a linux system, and I've preferred to choose the 32bit, because I'm not able to help them if the'll have problem with the hardware, for examples. And I cannot ask them to lose hours handing-on with a shell and a system they don't know.

I think the 64bit version of ubuntu should have at least the SAME level of usability and absolutely NO differences on software, hardwarer and drivers. That's all. I wonder if this is a goal the ubuntu developers want, or just to still "marginalize" the 64bit and present the 32bit as the main distro, also on all the new computer that are at 64bit since years.

P.S. Someone say that now flash is easy to install, (is the SAME as on the 32bit?) that's good. But that was not the only problem when I worked on this (since 6.10 to 7.04 and little 7.10)