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

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.

Running 64Bit Jaunty here.

AMD Phenom 2.8 Ghz.
6 Gigs of Ram.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfen69

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.

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.

:)

Using Arch64 & Windows XP 32-bit.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neoflight

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.

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. :-)

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.