[GLLUG] Ubuntu 32 or 64?

Richard Houser rick at divinesymphony.net
Thu Jun 3 12:03:03 EDT 2010


64 bit no question, some of that hardware is nonfunctional at 32 (ex. VT)

On 6/3/10, Philip J. Robar <philip.robar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:41 PM, STeve Andre' wrote:
>
>> Judging by the problems a lot of software has running on a sparc 64
>> instead of i386, I would stick with 32 bit stuff for now.
>
> As someone who worked in Sun's (R.I.P.) OS/Net group during the development
> of the 64 bit version of Solaris, that there is "lots" of software that has
> problems running on SPARC (or Intel) 64 bit Solaris is news to me. I ran a
> great deal of 32/64 bit open source software on 64 bit Solaris SPARC for
> years and never had a problem.
>
> My Apple Mini runs a 32 bit kernel (because Apple is too lazy/cheap to write
> the needed 64 bit drivers for it), but it runs a mixture of Apple and
> independent 32 and 64 bit (and PPC) software transparently to me. I
> exclusively run 64 bit Linux and Windows 7 and have only run into one
> problem with a wireless NIC, on 64 bit Windows 7, that I suspect might be 64
> bit related.
>
> That being said, Microsoft's Read Me's for 64 Vista/Windows 7 do make it
> clear that there are 32 bit versions of some software that will not run on
> the 64 bit versions of their OS's—although it's not clear if any particular
> issue is due explicitly to 32 vs 64 bit issues or developers not following
> Microsoft's development guidelines, no matter how vague and varying over the
> years they may have been.
>
> As best as I can recall, all of the reviews I've read say that in general,
> with sufficient RAM, 64 bit OS's and programs run a little faster than their
> 32 bit counterparts. On the other hand Adobe has been slow in rolling out 64
> bit versions of their software, not because of compatibility problems, but
> because they know that it will run slower on much of their customers'
> installed hardware base due to the relatively smaller cache sizes of CPUs
> from a few years ago (e.g. Intel Core X and older AMD 64) as compared to
> today's CPUs.
>
> I'd say go with 64 bits, especially given that your new machine is an i5.
>
> Phil
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-user mailing list
> linux-user at egr.msu.edu
> http://mailman.egr.msu.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-user
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device


More information about the linux-user mailing list