64 bit vs. 32 bit Ubuntu

[cfmcguire]

As most of you know, I went ahead and installed Ubuntu on my AMD dual core machine. Now the question arises: Should I install the 64 bit version and take advantage of all 4 gigs of RAM, or should I just cruise with the 32 bit version for a while? Inquiring minds want to know....

[aysiu]

This thread should help:
How many people actually take advantage of their 64bit processor?

[kd7swh]

what are you doing with the computer? if you are encoding video with ffmpeg or running cedgea (hard core gaming) than the 64-bit maybe a good idea but for most people it makes little difference.

I like the 32-bit versions better most of the time. the packages for i386 seem more stable to me. I don't know why.

[cfmcguire]

Nearly a year and a half after posting this question, I think that I have gotten my answer. I picked up the Linux Pro magazine Ubuntu special edition, and just for yuks installed the 64 bit version. (For evaluation, don't you know Heavily script dependent applications like google mail load a whole lot faster than they do on the 32 bit version of Ubuntu 8.04.

[ScottMorris]

I recently found a review comparing Ubuntu, Vista and Windows 7 to reach other. One of the cool things they did was compare the x86 (32-bit) to the x86_64 (64-bit) versions. http://www.tuxradar.com/node/33

I know this is kind of late to be posting this, but for anyone looking for info about 64-bit vs. 32-bit it may help the decision process.

[lordmorgoth]

honestly from personal experience, i never noticed a performance boost with x64 releases.

However what bothered me that my x64 bit installation(s) of 9.04 crashed every single time after installing new packages/updates.

It could be a hardware compatibility problem, but I should mention that I have been using the 32 bit releases and i never faced that particular problem . . .

For now i advise you to stick to 32-bit releases, you wont be using the 4 GB RAM anyways (most probably), and it'll saves you the painful efforts of finding some nasty hardware drivers (like me web cam for example) - which u can always compile from scratch if u want -.

[dxxvi]

The reason I want to stick with 32bit (and use PAE) is that about a year ago, I tried the 64bit and the 64bit took more memory than the 32bit. Now the Lucid Alpha3 (dist-upgraded daily) on my C2D T6570 4GB took 42 secs to boot and I was advised to switch to 64bit. Let's see if the 64bit gives me any performance wow in the next few days.

[sharnish]

Is is safe to assume that if I have Lucid's 64 bit server installed and then type apt-get install ubuntu-desktop, the 64 bit desktop will be installed?

Alternatively: How can I get Ubuntu to display which version is installed: 32 bit/64 bit - for server and desktop?

Thank you.

[smilingfrog]

I recently built a new system with an i5 processor and 8GB of RAM, and an nVidia GPU, and I have been running Mint 9, and then Ubuntu 10.04 when it came out, both in x64 flavours.

My system crashes entirely if I try to use flash, and if I try to resize windows in VirtualBox. I need to hard reboot at least twice a day in order to recover.

I want to access the 8GB, but I have to say I have had way more problems with stability in 64bit than I ever had with 32bit. I'll have to try the PAE, to see if that solves some of my woes.

[abuy]

I recently built a new system with an i5 processor and 8GB of RAM, and an nVidia GPU, and I have been running Mint 9, and then Ubuntu 10.04 when it came out, both in x64 flavours.

My system crashes entirely if I try to use flash, and if I try to resize windows in VirtualBox. I need to hard reboot at least twice a day in order to recover.

I want to access the 8GB, but I have to say I have had way more problems with stability in 64bit than I ever had with 32bit. I'll have to try the PAE, to see if that solves some of my woes.

I had used Ubuntu 10.04 x64 for some time, and found it really troublesome with the driver and flash issues it had. I nearly went back to Windows, but decided to try out the 32-bit version, which I found quite usable except for a few hiccups.

I then realized that Canonical really meant it when they said "Not recommended for daily desktop usage" (for the 64-bit version), at the download page for Ubuntu.