Ubuntu 10.04, making the 32bit OS 64bit?
- Thread starter Edward78
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 8,706
- Location
- Nottingham
No, all your OS binaries would still be 32bit (and hence the 64bit kernel probably wouldn't install anyway)
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
There are ways to use more than the 3GB limitation in Linux...
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-use-more-than-3gb-ram-on-32-bit-ubuntu.html
Or use a PAE Kernel.
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-use-more-than-3gb-ram-on-32-bit-ubuntu.html
Or use a PAE Kernel.
How do I get the PAE kernel? Will it brake anything in the OS?
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 8,706
- Location
- Nottingham
Shouldn't break anything ... it's a standard kernel.
Google for "ubuntu 10.04 pae kernel" (without quotes) and the first hit is for EnablingPAE which gives instructions.
PAE is an option. It'll get you your RAM and won't hurt performance. Some applications might blurk out occasionally but most of the issues have been ironed out for a while.
But 64bit is usually always a better option these days though. Because 99% of applications in a 64bit distribution are compiled for 64bit, using 64bit registers, there is a pronounced performance increase in most applications. Here's a Phoronix article showing this:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae
The performance difference is much more dramatic than going from Win32 to Win64 as most of the binaries you'd use on there are still 32bit, compiled with a limited 32bit instruction set.
Historically there have been issues with 64bit (read: Java and Flash being a pain in the bum) but these are mostly solved problems. I certainly haven't hit a problem in a very long time.
But 64bit is usually always a better option these days though. Because 99% of applications in a 64bit distribution are compiled for 64bit, using 64bit registers, there is a pronounced performance increase in most applications. Here's a Phoronix article showing this:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_32_pae
The performance difference is much more dramatic than going from Win32 to Win64 as most of the binaries you'd use on there are still 32bit, compiled with a limited 32bit instruction set.
Historically there have been issues with 64bit (read: Java and Flash being a pain in the bum) but these are mostly solved problems. I certainly haven't hit a problem in a very long time.
Be awesome if windows was this easy.As long as you have your /home on a different partition to the / then just reinstall over it.
If you keep your /home intact then you can happily chop and change any version of Linux without actually losing a thing... Well maybe the odd background or theme perhaps, but apart from that, Im sure that everything is kept as-is.
For example, I have gone from Ubuntu 9.10 ( 64Bit ) to Mint 9 ( 32Bit ) to Debian 5.0.3 ( 32Bit ) and then to Kubuntu and back to Ubuntu, both 10.4-64Bit then to Mandriva Gnome ( 32Bit ) and then to Debian 5.0.5-64Bit all without losing a thing other than the themes and thats because I mostly use the Emerald themer with Compiz-Fusion, and they're not standard are they?
If you keep your /home intact then you can happily chop and change any version of Linux without actually losing a thing... Well maybe the odd background or theme perhaps, but apart from that, Im sure that everything is kept as-is.
For example, I have gone from Ubuntu 9.10 ( 64Bit ) to Mint 9 ( 32Bit ) to Debian 5.0.3 ( 32Bit ) and then to Kubuntu and back to Ubuntu, both 10.4-64Bit then to Mandriva Gnome ( 32Bit ) and then to Debian 5.0.5-64Bit all without losing a thing other than the themes and thats because I mostly use the Emerald themer with Compiz-Fusion, and they're not standard are they?