would my 64-bit computer be better with ubuntu 64-bit or 32-bit?

[hanzj]

hello,
I have a 64-bit computer.

cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep model
model : 47
model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3800+

The computer has 1 GB of ram.
The computer is year 2004 or a bit older.


Page 144 of the "Getting Started with Ubuntu 10.04" manual says

Computers capable of running 64-bit software are able to process more information than computers running 32-bit software; however, 64-bit systems require more memory in order to do this. Nevertheless, these computers gain performance enhancements by running 64-bit software.

Why choose one over another? Pay attention to the version you select in the following cases:

‣ If your computer is fairly old (made before 2007), then you may want to
install the 32-bit version of Ubuntu.
‣ If your computer has more than 4 GB of memory (RAM), then you may need
to install the 64-bit version in order to use all the installed memory.

Based on the manual, my computer is "fairly old" and it's suggested I install 32-bit ubuntu. Should I?

Please try to answer three questions:

1. In my case, is it better to use Ubuntu 64-bit edition?
2. In my case, what are the disadvantages of using 64 bit ubuntu?
3. In my case, what are the advantages?

If you answer my 3 questions, your comment would be more helpful for me than just a general "Go install 64 bit" or "Install 32 bit". Thank you.

[computerguts]

yes, make sure this is the case though before you install

[QIII]

Do you remember all those people who doggedly stuck to 16 bit OSs when 32 bit OSs became the norm?

If you have the hardware, use a 64 bit OS.

All the FUD about stuff not working is exactly that: FUD.

[Calash]

Go 64bit.

Try the LiveCD first and make sure all your hardware works. If you don't see any major issues go ahead and install it. You will likely not even notice the difference.

[arrrghhh]

I'd say go 64-bit, it's becoming more and more compatible. The real benefit comes in if you have more than 4GB of RAM - the 32-bit register is incapable of recognizing more RAM than that. The benefits aren't *huge* (other than the RAM issue), but everything is going that way eventually.

[hanzj]

i've just updated my OP. I have only 1 GB of ram.

[anewguy]

Do you remember all those people who doggedly stuck to 16 bit OSs when 32 bit OSs became the norm?

If you have the hardware, use a 64 bit OS.

All the FUD about stuff not working is exactly that: FUD.

Not necessarily - I have a 64-bit processor and tried the 64-bit version of 9.10 quite a while ago. At that time at least, several things could not be made to work, and the word on the forum was "not currently with 64-bit" and "for that functionality you will need to use the 32-bit version". Just what those things were I couldn't tell you now. All I know is the problems I had were enough to make me go back and install the 32-bit version instead. Sure, it doesn't take full advantage of the processor(s), but I also haven't had the problems as I did with 64-bit back then. Is it possible that whatever those things were have been made to work now? Sure - I don't know. I just know it's not worth the hassle for me, even on a new install like I'll be doing with 10.01. Not all negative remarks about 64-bit are FUD.

Just my experience - not arguing, just my experience.

Dave

[quadproc]

1. In my case, is it better to use Ubuntu 64-bit edition?
2. In my case, what are the disadvantages of using 64 bit ubuntu?
3. In my case, what are the advantages?

Almost all desktop and laptop software now is capable of running on 64 bit processors so the older 32 bit SW will be relegated to legacy status as time passes. Life will likely be much easier on the 64 bit path.

quadproc

[KdotJ]

64bit for sure. If your processor can do it, then thats the best option

[barney385]

I've been using amd64 since Hardy came out.

It is working great/better with Lucid Lynx.