Ubuntu 64 bit

Lee

Lee

Lee

Associate
Joined
21 Dec 2006
Posts
474
Location
Northampton
Hi, why is it reccommended to install the 32bit desktop version and not the 64bit version of Ubuntu ?
 
The more people that use 32 bit, the more reason Adobe will have to say there is less need to support 64 bit. Linux is about innovation, not stagnation.

On another note, 64 bit flash works fine here apart from that odd crash screen which seems to be popping up on both Windows and Linux in recent weeks.
 
It's down to ubuntu's comparatively poor implementation of the amd64 architecture.

Other distros give you the 64 bit (amd64) libraries for 64 bit applications, and the 32 bit (i386) libraries for applications that are only available in 32 bit form, like fully functioning Java GUIs and browser plugins. This is a lot like how Windows does it.

Ubuntu 64 bit only gives you 64bit libs, so if there isn't a good 64 bit build available you can't have the app. Though there is a hacky unofficial way of having the 32 bit libs.

Why do you want 64 bit? Do you have an app that calls for high memory performance? Or a single process that uses more than 4GiB of memory? Ubuntu supports PAE so the 32 bit version can use all your memory, so long as a single process doesn't use more than 4GiB.
 
BigglesPiP said:
Ubuntu 64 bit only gives you 64bit libs, so if there isn't a good 64 bit build available you can't have the app. Though there is a hacky unofficial way of having the 32 bit libs.
Click to expand...

Is the unofficial way "apt-get install ia32-libs", or do you have something else in mind? I'm a bit thrown by the idea of unofficial as applied to Ubuntu in general, but I believe ia32-libs is even in the standard repository.
 
JonJ678 said:
Is the unofficial way "apt-get install ia32-libs", or do you have something else in mind? I'm a bit thrown by the idea of unofficial as applied to Ubuntu in general, but I believe ia32-libs is even in the standard repository.
Click to expand...

That gets you the libs, but you still need to get and then force install i386 packages when amd64 or noarch packages are not available, which will probably confuse the package manager or dist-upgrade somewhere down the line. It's more useful for when you want to install some 32bit thing from source or with a binary installer (like flash downloaded from Adobe).

Another hacky way is to use getlibs, which will find and install the right 32 bit libs for a 32 bit package.

My favourite way is Fedora's, just have 32 bit libs and packages in the 64bit repo with sane dependencies.


(edit: I've not read up on this since maverick GA'd, so maybe it's better now)
 
Last edited:
Ah, thanks. I'm with you now. I haven't run Ubuntu since Hardy, but as Debian appears to deal with 32/64 bit just as you've described I imagine it's the same for Ubuntu.
 
When XP64 was first released, I had a small issue with drivers, but the advantages were obvious.

I dumped the printer, got a newer one, dumped the USB Modem and went with routers and NEVER looked back.

I have not used any form of 32Bit O/S since... Well, back then.

Never had a problem with it.
 
I use Mint 64-Bit (which is based on Ubuntu) and AFAIK they use the 64-Bit version of Flash.

I've had no problems what-so-ever. I can sit and watch full-screen flash videos just fine.
 
FatRakoon said:
When XP64 was first released, I had a small issue with drivers, but the advantages were obvious.

I dumped the printer, got a newer one, dumped the USB Modem and went with routers and NEVER looked back.

I have not used any form of 32Bit O/S since... Well, back then.

Never had a problem with it.
Click to expand...

What advantages were obvious? You only listed things that 32 bit operating systems can do.

There are advantages to 64 bit, but almost no consumer needs them.

That said my Windows PC is 64bit, but only because all the drivers were available. If it was going to be any harder to use 64 bit Windows 7 I would have installed the 32 bit version.

64bit ubuntu is still more work for no reward for me, so I use the 32 bit version, life is to short to be an early adopter.
 
oddly enough, if you download the WUBI installer (which is really meant for total noobs like me) and run it from within 64bit windows, it automatically installs the 64bit version of ubuntu. you don't even get a choice. and FWIW, i've had no problems with it at all. everything just works.
 
BigglesPiP said:
What advantages were obvious? You only listed things that 32 bit operating systems can do.

There are advantages to 64 bit, but almost no consumer needs them.

That said my Windows PC is 64bit, but only because all the drivers were available. If it was going to be any harder to use 64 bit Windows 7 I would have installed the 32 bit version.

64bit ubuntu is still more work for no reward for me, so I use the 32 bit version, life is to short to be an early adopter.
Click to expand...

You must be the only person that I have heard say it's easier to go 64bits with windows... I've been using 64bit linux for over 6yrs now, from early opteron days, and apart from flash there has never been too many problems. Early on a few driver issues on some IDE controllers (i was on scsi mostly anyways). These days flash works fine on 64bit, on linux i can't think of a reason to stay on 32bit. Unless of course you're still thinking the only advantage of 64bit is the 4GB of ram limit. 64bit x86 linux is probably better tested than x86 32bit linux.

I went windows XP 64 1yr ago and nothing worked. Everything would crash all the time, couldnt play most of my 2yr old games. Now i'm using 7 64bit and a 32bit XP VM, and it's working OK now. Actually flash on windows kinda sucks on W7 64bit.
 
brendan said:
You must be the only person that I have heard say it's easier to go 64bits with windows... I've been using 64bit linux for over 6yrs now, from early opteron days, and apart from flash there has never been too many problems. Early on a few driver issues on some IDE controllers (i was on scsi mostly anyways). These days flash works fine on 64bit, on linux i can't think of a reason to stay on 32bit. Unless of course you're still thinking the only advantage of 64bit is the 4GB of ram limit. 64bit x86 linux is probably better tested than x86 32bit linux.

I went windows XP 64 1yr ago and nothing worked. Everything would crash all the time, couldnt play most of my 2yr old games. Now i'm using 7 64bit and a 32bit XP VM, and it's working OK now. Actually flash on windows kinda sucks on W7 64bit.
Click to expand...

Well, I switched to 64 bit windows when I switched to 7 from XP last year, no issues at all, but then I knew it would be fine because I checked my hardware had drivers.

Last 64 bit Ubuntu I tried (10.04) I could not get Java GUIs delivered from websites to work, which stops me doing my job, so back to 32bit I went and have had zero issues with getting software to work.

Better tested? Bear in mind you're speaking to a professional software tester. The Ubuntu 10.10 deskep i386 torrent has almost 3 times as many seeds as the amd64 version. Can you show me that the amd64 arch has more coverage in the field or in test at Canonical?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom