64 bit default

[yorkie]

Hi
64 bit CPU`s have been around for a few years now.
Most CPU`s today are 64 bit, is it about time Ubuntu 64 bit became the standard default version.
I know there is a lot of people still have 32 bit CPUs but we have to move on sometime.
If 64bit was the default more software will become available in 64 bit.
Cheers

[DanTheFlyingMan]

What do you mean by "default"?

[gn2]

Don't think 64 should be the default until all new hardware is 64.

There are still some new machines being sold that are 32 only, e.g. Intel Atom.

[Paqman]

Even though i'm a 64-bit evangelist, I say: no, because 32-bit works on everything and 64-bit doesn't.

Give it five years, then we should just be able to drop 32-bit altogether.

[Nepherte]

I want Ubuntu 64bit to be default on computers with a 64bit cpu.

[zmjjmz]

64-bit default would break backwards compatibility, so no.

[voteforpedro36]

Is there really a default at all?

[MasterNetra]

No 64bit shouldn't be default just yet. Once 32bit is completely obsolete you can make 64bit default. (or at least when the vast majority software and plugins are for 64 bit)


Is there really a default at all?

Come to think of it no I guess not. Sense you choose wither or not you want 32bit or 64bit. Although i would like to see dell opting for both 32 and 64. but meh.

[Icehuck]

64-bit default would break backwards compatibility, so no.

In terms of what? I run 64-bit right now and I can still run 32-bit programs just fine. Are you worried that it won't run on that 500mhz P3 anymore? Cause honestly I could care less if a piece of technology from 1998 works well with stuff developed in 2008 or later.

[Namtabmai]

In terms of what? I run 64-bit right now and I can still run 32-bit programs just fine. Are you worried that it won't run on that 500mhz P3 anymore? Cause honestly I could care less if a piece of technology from 1998 works well with stuff developed in 2008 or later.

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/2919/caringtg5.th.png (http://img383.imageshack.us/my.php?image=caringtg5.png)http://img383.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

[MasterNetra]

In terms of what? I run 64-bit right now and I can still run 32-bit programs just fine. Are you worried that it won't run on that 500mhz P3 anymore? Cause honestly I could care less if a piece of technology from 1998 works well with stuff developed in 2008 or later.

There are some 32 bit things without 64bit instructions, linux version adobe air, and adobe flash are two. Granted there are work arounds but meh.

[Half-Left]

Simply put no, your suggesting they demote 32bit to legacy for what special reason?

To take fully advantage of 64bit you need 4Gb of ram or higher, linux is known not to be a hardware upgrade hog. Linux has just about all of it's apps in 64bit unlike Windows and OS X, we are infact well ahead of them and have been for some time.

[smartboyathome]

No, definately not. My laptop runs a Centrino duo processor, which is not a 64 bit processor. So you'd be basically throwing support for me out with the garbage.

[zmjjmz]

Cause honestly I could care less if a piece of technology from 1998 works well with stuff developed in 2008 or later.

Þat's exactly my point.

[tuxxy]

Hi
64 bit CPU`s have been around for a few years now.
Most CPU`s today are 64 bit, is it about time Ubuntu 64 bit became the standard default version.
I know there is a lot of people still have 32 bit CPUs but we have to move on sometime.
If 64bit was the default more software will become available in 64 bit.
Cheers

Give it some time and we can all forget about 32-bit completely, 128-bit anyone? :lolflag:

[yorkie]

I am not saying ditch 32 bit, just make 64 bit the main version .
64bit can be backward compatible with 32 bit.
If all Linux Distro`s became 64 bit o/s it would certainly give it the edge over other o/s
and boost the need for more 64bit software.

[master5o1]

This poll makes no sense. The is an official 64-bit version of Ubuntu, therefore it is already default. Just because they also offer 32-bit doesn't mean that 64-bit is not default.

I am not voting because it is a pointless poll.

[smartboyathome]

Give it some time and we can all forget about 32-bit completely, 128-bit anyone? :lolflag:

Aw, I wanted to mention that. We should really make 128 bit default and get rid of the others, though. Who cares if there are still many processors running 32 and 64 bit? I couldn't care less about them. :p

[garwaymatt]

No. The default download should stay as the 32bit version, as it will work on *everything*.
A new user, who is not particularly tech aware can use it on their new 64bit machine, everything works and they probably wouldn't see the benefits of a 64bit OS anyway.

On the other hand, if 64bit is the default:
Best case scenario, they have a 64bit machine (Later than an athlon64/late P4 Era). Mostly works, although they have to fight to install flash, which even when installed is as stable as your average Saturday night binge drinker.

Possibly more likely scenario, User has a 32bit only machine (of which there are an awful lot still around and work perfectly fine with Ubuntu/Xubuntu/whatever). Completely fails to work, user has wasted a couple of hours downloading and a CD.

Those people who care and will actually derive benefit can get the 64bit version easily. Those users who couldn't care less or don't know the difference can get a version that will work perfectly fine for them.

[Lazarus500]

There still is no Java runtime environment available as a plug-in for 64 bit Firefox and other browsers. Iced tea works sometimes. Even if you get everything working by using nspluginwrapper or a 32 bit browser, things break more often than a 32 bit machine, particularly on upgrades. I vote NO.

[samjh]

"Default" for what?


There still is no Java runtime environment available as a plug-in for 64 bit Firefox and other browsers. Iced tea works sometimes. Even if you get everything working by using nspluginwrapper or a 32 bit browser, things break more often than a 32 bit machine, particularly on upgrades. I vote NO.

64-bit Sun Java web plugin is coming. Scheduled release is for JRE/JDK 6u12 (current release is 6u10), some time in early 2009.

[SomeGuyDude]

64 bit lacks Flash and a few other things. Plus it pulls more power than 32-bit.

Frankly I don't get what the 64-bit advantage is for most of us.

[oedipuss]

Concerning flash and other browser plugins, couldn't you just run a 32bit firefox ? Or to be more precise, couldn't such an installation include a 32 bit firefox by default ?

I prefer a 32bit ubuntu as well, though. AFAIK, it isn't possible to use windows VSTs with wine and jack easily in a 64bit environment, which is something I discovered the hard way :P Kind of a specialist thing, a typical user couldn't care less, but it makes me wonder if there are more little incompatibilities like that, that wouldn't be apparent until it's too late.

[SomeGuyDude]

In Arch you have to download a boatload of 32-bit libraries plus ndiswrapper and a few other things in order to get flash/Java rolling. Wine is almost impossible, but it can be done.

As it stands, any benefits of a 64-bit environment seem to be geared solely towards people who are using their machines for INSANELY resource-heavy tasks. One of the things mentioned is that you can have more than 4GB of RAM. I have 2 and a look in my task manager says I'm using 375MB currently with all of my normal things going. As a normal user, I cannot fathom what I'd need to be doing that would require >4GB of memory. I'm thinking some HEAVY multimedia development, but that's about all.

And let me tell you, if you're on a notebook doing something that requires in excess of 4MB of RAM plus whatever other speed bonuses a 64-bit environment can get you, I think your best solution is a desktop for that work and a cheapie notebook to carry around.

[tuxxy]

Iced tea works sometimes. Even if you get everything working by using nspluginwrapper or a 32 bit browser, things break more often than a 32 bit machine, particularly on upgrades. I vote NO.

Iced tea is excellent with 64-bit browsers and my machines never break on upgrades :)

[K.Mandla]

Are you worried that it won't run on that 500mhz P3 anymore? Cause honestly I could care less if a piece of technology from 1998 works well with stuff developed in 2008 or later.
I would care.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I would care.

so would I, my processor is 32bit as well.
I dont think 64 will ever become a default or standard for some time, but it will get implemented better with intel chips becoming more 64bit oriented

[macogw]

There still is no Java runtime environment available as a plug-in for 64 bit Firefox and other browsers. Iced tea works sometimes. Even if you get everything working by using nspluginwrapper or a 32 bit browser, things break more often than a 32 bit machine, particularly on upgrades. I vote NO.

Er, OpenJDK includes pretty much everything needed and works fine on 64bit. It uses all of Sun's stuff that they've open sourced, and then whatever's left has been filled in. It's feature complete and bytecode compatible, I believe.

Also, I'd care about my Pentium 2 suddenly not working. And my Pentium 4. And my Core Duo. And by the way, we don't have a default architecture to begin with!

[SomeGuyDude]

I would care.

But isn't there a lower limit? How long can software be geared toward 10 year old hardware? 15 year old hardware? Should OS's continue to be expected to write 32-bit softare for years after no one actually sells 32-bit procs any more?

I say this as a 32-bit user myself (with a C2D admittely), and I just don't get why there should be pressure to cater toward the extreme low end crowd. That's a niche market in my eyes. Obviously no one should be expected to buy a new machine annually, but if you picked up a computer in 1998 that was low-end then... I don't think you can complain too much when you can't find a new operating system to run on it in 2009. It's like getting mad that new DVD players don't have the R/F switch.

[macogw]

But isn't there a lower limit? How long can software be geared toward 10 year old hardware? 15 year old hardware? Should OS's continue to be expected to write 32-bit softare for years after no one actually sells 32-bit procs any more?

I say this as a 32-bit user myself (with a C2D admittely), and I just don't get why there should be pressure to cater toward the extreme low end crowd. That's a niche market in my eyes. Obviously no one should be expected to buy a new machine annually, but if you picked up a computer in 1998 that was low-end then... I don't think you can complain too much when you can't find a new operating system to run on it in 2009. It's like getting mad that new DVD players don't have the R/F switch.

Note that Core Duo and Core Solo are still being manufactured. A lot of 32bit CPUs are still being produced.

[lisati]

Although the battery life has kinda gone south, there's still life in my "day to day" laptop, which has a Celeron M. So running 64-bit Ubuntu is out of the question. Unless, of course, I decide to learn my way round it's innards and upgrade - a little extra RAM probably wouldn't hurt in it either.

[SomeGuyDude]

Note that Core Duo and Core Solo are still being manufactured. A lot of 32bit CPUs are still being produced.

Oh I know that. But I think a large part of that is that 64-bit architecture hasn't ironed out all its kinks yet. Heck, I remember a few years ago trying to figure out why in the world anyone would use Windows 64 (not "micro$haft" comments, please). Once the 64-bit OS becomes as workable as its 32-bit counterpart, I can't imagine the older procs will hang around long.

And when/if that happens, should devs feel obligated to continue to make things compatible with 32-bit? I'd say yes, but not forever. And how long should that be?

Is it a bad thing that software takes up more RAM now, necessarily? I like low-resource in general, but in an age when even lower-end notebooks come with 2GB of RAM and most affordable desktop units are sitting on 4 or 8, can you blame Mozilla for not being too concerned that occasionally Firefox eats up 300MB or so?

With hardware getting crazy cheap and computers increasingly more affordable (I saw Best Buy with a clearout sale, showcasing brand new $270 notebooks with specs better than my 18 month old lappy), why should the big guys feel pressured to make sure their software runs on a machine with 512MB when you can buy a spare 512MB stick for about $20? Should they be concerned that the OS uses 4GB of HD space when you can't even find a machine with an HD under about 160?

My question is: where's the limit? How old of a computer can we conceivably expect the big name devs to accommodate in their design? To be sure Linux will always, ALWAYS have its place for "how few resources can we use?" I converted to Arch+Openbox in just that pursuit. But I see that as niche more than mainstream, and don't really expect Ubuntu or Windows or OSX or whoever else is going to move up to the big ranks to give two figs if their next iteration of the OS uses an extra handful of system resources, or if they drop 32-bit support a few years after 32-bit procs are phased out.

...know what I mean?

[Paqman]

they have to fight to install flash


Not so. Installing Flash on 64-bit is just as easy as 32-bit, and has been for some time.

The days of having to use Firefox32 on 64-bit are over. 64-bit is now entirely hassle-free in my experience.

[gn2]

The days of having to use Firefox32 on 64-bit are over. 64-bit is now entirely hassle-free in my experience.

In my experience too.
As far as I can see, 64-bit has come a long way in the last year.

[stchman]

Pretty much every new CPU is 64 bit capable so yes. The poll is not saying to get rid of 32 bit, but just have 64 bit be the default.

[gn2]

Pretty much every new CPU is 64 bit capable so yes.

Apart from what is potentially the fastest selling CPU at the moment, the Intel Atom fitted in netbooks which are flying off the shelves as fast as theey can be manufactured.

[mips]

I dunno about Ubuntu but I spent a good portion of time with Sabayon 64bit which worked really well and then moved on to Arch 64bit and I have not had any significant hassles to speak off.

64bit has been working well for me since along time ago and I don't see myself ever using 32bit again unless the cpu is 32bit like my laptop.

[laurielegit]

Even though i'm a 64-bit evangelist, I say: no, because 32-bit works on everything and 64-bit doesn't.

Give it five years, then we should just be able to drop 32-bit altogether.

I hope not as by that time 32bit computers will be so cheap... I have one 64bit desktop but all my laptop (bought at rock bottom prices) are 32 bit. I suppose I ought to start collecting 32bit CDs for the worst case scenario of Ubuntu stopping 32bit altogether (but they wont) :)

[*g!t5^_)*(H]

Ubuntu must be easy, 64 bits means no easy flash (for example) and other issues. People who understand what 64bits means will understand how to download it, but people who know nothing will run 32bits flawlessly without care about their processor capabilities.

NO (right now)

[Corfy]

I could care less if a piece of technology from 1998 works well with stuff developed in 2008 or later.

My laptop was purchased new last year. It has a dual-core processor, but it is still 32 bit. So you are now talking about 2007 technology not being able to run stuff developed in 2008. While that might be acceptable for Windows Vista, I expect better of Linux.

[Paqman]

64 bits means no easy flash

No it doesn't.

Seriously, try it for yourself. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.