what is going on64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage

[McRat]

Where have you been? Maybe back in '04 64bit was different, but I can assure you 64bit ubuntu has a gui just like 32bit. There's really no difference.

When I went to try it, all I saw was 32 bit Desktop and 64 bit Server. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough at the time.

Today I just looked and it seems to be different from where I downloaded from a month ago. It does have a 64 bit desktop option.

[lisati]

I think Canonical have recently updated the Ubuntu web site, which could explain things. I noticed yesterday when I went to download a couple of ISO files using a URL I'd bookmarked, and ended up with a "page not found" error.

[TheSqueak]

I've run across a couple of video codecs I can't play in 64 bit, but everything else is fine.

[conradin]

What does
"64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage"
(shown on http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download)
mean?

is the 64 bit version not stable enough to actually install?
what can I expect from the 64 bit version of lucid and where can I get more information on why daily usage isn't recommended?

[Woody1987]

The 64bit version is fine. I have been using it for 2 years without much hassle. The only problem i have ever had which was 64bit related was with flash, but that, at least for me is no longer a problem with 10.04. I usually recommend the following dependng on how much memory you have:

<3GB - 32bit
3-4GB - 32bit + pae with free graphics drivers / 64bit with proprietry drivers
>4GB - 64bit

[hansdown]

Hi conradin.

That is a strange message.

I'm using 64-bit lucid now, and it works very well.

The only thing I've noticed, is firefox runs slower.

[jo4hnc]

I have to agree with Woody and Hansdown. I've been using the 64bit versions for three years now. With the latest version, Lucid, even the flash implementation seems to be much better. And on my machine Firefox does get a bit quirky at times but not really enough to even start to drive me crazy.

[vandorjw]

Website maintainers should remove that message imho.
or change it to:
32-bit ~ recommended for computers more than 3 years old.
64-bit - recommended for computers less than 3 years old.

(I think all cpu made less than 3 years ago are 64 bit capable)

I would run 64 bit even if you only have 1 gb of ram.

Back in the days, people had 64MB of ram, and ran windows 98 (32 bit)
[i realize that 16 bit is not capable of 64MB, just saying it does no "real" harm]

[odius]

I use an athlon 64 with Lucid and 1 gig of ram.

only problem I've had was nautilus suddenly not wanting to arrange by name and the power management not wanting to stay OFF hahaha but xset -dpms took care of that.

[v1ad]

just 64 bit sends 64 bits of instructions to the processor instead of 32 bit.

i think that they never got around to changing it. it is stable and works perfectly. i only use 64 bit.