Author Topic: 64 or 32 bit Linux? (Read 11947 times)

xsphat · « **on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:12:17 »

I have a MacBook with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo processor. I think the processor os 64 bit, so I should I install 32 or 64 Ubuntu 8.10?

zwmalone · « **Reply #1 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:26:40 »

Adobe has 64bit flash support now and almost any linux app has a 64bit native counterpart so no reason not to use 64bit. Also, 64bit really only comes in handy when you are utilizing 4GB or more of RAM.

xsphat · « **Reply #2 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:37:43 »

I have 4GB of RAM but I don't do much to use it all. I downloaded the 32 bit, so what would the 64 bit get me?

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #3 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:38:15 »

Quote from: zwmalone;17177

Adobe has 64bit flash support now and almost any linux app has a 64bit native counterpart so no reason not to use 64bit. Also, 64bit really only comes in handy when you are utilizing 4GB or more of RAM.

flash was my only reason for using 32 bit

Quote from: xsphat;17178

I have 4GB of RAM but I don't do much to use it all. I downloaded the 32 bit, so what would the 64 bit get me?

not much really, some things will run faster but 99% of people that just use computers as computers and not tools won't notice a difference. Also the linux SMP folding @*home client only runs on 64 bit unless they've changed it, lol.

zwmalone · « **Reply #4 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:41:07 »

BAM! http://blogs.computerworld.com/64_bit_linux_adobe_flash_player_surprisingly_good
and a download link if you decide to use 64bit: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html

xsphat · « **Reply #5 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:41:48 »

Thanks guys, I think I'll just make a live CD of the 32 bit iso I downloaded.

I'm only switching because there are so many Linux users here. Does anyone use Slackware here? What about FreeBSD?

zwmalone · « **Reply #6 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:43:33 »

Quote from: xsphat;17178

I have 4GB of RAM but I don't do much to use it all. I downloaded the 32 bit, so what would the 64 bit get me?

Here's some benchmarks

To me it just feels stabler than 32bit for some reason. 1/2 the already non-existent kernel panics!:rolleyes:

zwmalone · « **Reply #7 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:49:57 »

Quote from: xsphat;17182

Thanks guys, I think I'll just make a live CD of the 32 bit iso I downloaded.

I'm only switching because there are so many Linux users here. Does anyone use Slackware here? What about FreeBSD?

Slackware is nowhere near as user friendly or "polished feeling" as Ubuntu or Fedora or other "mainstream" distros. Be prepared to do a lot more command line work than you would with Ubuntu.

If you are just starting out this is NOT the distro for you. Wikipedia says it better than I can:

Quote from: wikipedia

Many design choices in Slackware can be seen as examples of the KISS principle.[9] In this context, "simple" refers to the viewpoint of system design, rather than ease of use. Most software in Slackware uses the configuration mechanisms supplied by the software's original authors; there are few distribution-specific mechanisms. This is the reason there are so few GUI tools to configure the system. This comes at the cost of user-friendliness. Critics consider the distribution time consuming and difficult to learn, whereas advocates consider it flexible and transparent and like the experience gained from the learning process.

xsphat · « **Reply #8 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 22:55:43 »

Well that one is NOT for me.

I was between Mint and Ubuntu, and Mint lost because the GUI feels like XP - it even has a start button!

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #9 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 23:23:53 »

XD I like mint more than ubuntu. They ditched that **** colour scheme for one thing, lol.

zwmalone · « **Reply #10 on:** Mon, 05 January 2009, 23:55:21 »

That's what Gnome-Look is for!

iMav · « **Reply #11 on:** Tue, 06 January 2009, 05:27:31 »

Knowing how much you love and are comfortable with OS X, I suggest that you run linux in a VM (virtual machine) for a while before making the jump. If you haven't paid for VMWare and/or Parallels previously, then go ahead and download the free VirtualBox. It's my VM environment of choice.

Therac-25 · « **Reply #12 on:** Tue, 06 January 2009, 07:22:25 »

Slackware was awesome in 1994 when I started out...

Anyway, just go with stock Ubuntu, it's not worth messing around with anything different.

Ubuntu has, by far, the most momentum of any mainstream distro right now, and thanks to launchpad, alot of smaller open source projects are getting free apt repositories for their stuff. I'm currently working on a project that's hosted on launchpad, so I might be a bit biased, but Ubuntu is by far the easiest to solve problems on.

If you don't know what Launchpad is, Canonical (the company that's behind Ubuntu) developed a free distributed version control system (bzr), and an integrated project hosting service / open source project management hub / apt-based package distribution service called launchpad that integrates with bzr, to make working on open source projects actually awesome. No more mailing patches around, or dealing with the cabal that has commit access. And all that awesomeness is targeted at making it easy to create Ubuntu packages for distribution.

Also, unless you have >4G of memory you need to address, just stick with 32bit. It's not 2038 yet, so you don't need to worry. There are still edge cases that will annoy you with the 64-bit version, and unless you have a reason to put up with them, there's really no point.

xsphat · « **Reply #13 on:** Tue, 06 January 2009, 13:19:40 »

Quote from: iMav;17197

Knowing how much you love and are comfortable with OS X, I suggest that you run linux in a VM (virtual machine) for a while before making the jump. If you haven't paid for VMWare and/or Parallels previously, then go ahead and download the free VirtualBox. It's my VM environment of choice.

Virtual Box only lets me run in 800x600, so it's pretty unusable.

And I can not for the life of me get Boot Camp to recognize my Linux install. I have had Ubuntu installed with Boot Camp before but now it won't let me choose it. I know to hold option at start up to switch OSs but it only gives me one option and the Linux drive shows up on my desktop but it is empty — after I installed Ubuntu on it.

I officially give up on Linux. I am not allowed to have it.

xsphat · « **Reply #14 on:** Tue, 06 January 2009, 13:22:15 »

And this is happening even though I zeroed out the HDD and reinstalled OS X.

iMav · « **Reply #15 on:** Tue, 06 January 2009, 13:52:41 »

Quote from: xsphat;17230

Virtual Box only lets me run in 800x600, so it's pretty unusable.

You have to install the guest OS tools (just like if you were installing the nasty under virtualization. Once you do that, you can take advantage of full resolution (and resize till your heart's content).

Therac-25 · « **Reply #16 on:** Tue, 06 January 2009, 13:57:24 »

Quote from: xsphat;17230

Virtual Box only lets me run in 800x600, so it's pretty unusable.

And I can not for the life of me get Boot Camp to recognize my Linux install. I have had Ubuntu installed with Boot Camp before but now it won't let me choose it. I know to hold option at start up to switch OSs but it only gives me one option and the Linux drive shows up on my desktop but it is empty — after I installed Ubuntu on it.

I officially give up on Linux. I am not allowed to have it.

The empty drive is not surprising -- I don't think that Leopard ships with ext3 filesystem drivers (does it?).

Some threads on topic:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=600246

http://patrickbikes.blogspot.com/2007/12/leopard-ubuntu-dual-boot-success.html

Apparently Boot Camp sucks and doesn't work for this task. You want GNU rEFIt:

http://refit.sourceforge.net/myths/

andb · « **Reply #17 on:** Tue, 06 January 2009, 14:41:56 »

Are there skype binaries for 64bit kernels? I think this is another thing that were holding people back for a while. On a single machine, find one that works and does what you need. When you ahve more machines, you want to minimize variations so that you dont have to keep track of a million bugs and work arounds. For me this means 64 bit debian on servers and 32bit ubuntu on workstations.

Plus, I use current -1 ubuntu versions (so now 8.04) unless I really need something in the new version that isn't in backports and that I really for some reason don't want to compile from sources. The reason is that I don't like reporting and solving bugs anymore, I just want to use a computer.

Also, if you have only 4GB of memory, you actually gain very little usable memory over 32 bit due to how the memory is addressed, IIRC. Get up to 8 or 16gb and it becomes a real issue, but at 4, who cares. These days, even with 100 firefox windows open, unless you are gimp-ing and cinerrella-ing left and right you won't use over 2gb anyway.

Last note, I completely agree with iMav's recommendation to start in a VM environment. That way you can instantly switch to OSX if you need to work, and can play with ubuntu anytime. Unless you are a programmer or other type of developer or have someone who can help you, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to move away from OSX, which is already an excellent OS for mainstream use. Of course its cool to learn to use it and some of the things that prove best for use in the long run dont seem to make sense at first.

Also, such benchmards as zlib compression or MD5 hashing are USELESS in the real world unless you do these things all day. You are waiting for Open Office to load from a disk or the next geekhack forum page to load from internet. How often do you create multi-gig compressed files? Uhm, never? So in the real world there is NO, I repeat NO difference in user performance between 64 and 32 bit os unless you are running a server sending out hundreds of pages a second or running nonstop database queries. And even then, adding an extra disk to your RAID5 array will likely make a bigger performance impact. Pshew, had to get that off my chest.

Repoman · « **Reply #18 on:** Tue, 06 January 2009, 15:36:44 »

xsphat...

I think what might work for you is rEFIt - or boot camp on steroids as I like to think. That should allow you to Linux yerself up...

xsphat · « **Reply #19 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 02:05:56 »

Quote from: iMav;17234

You have to install the guest OS tools (just like if you were installing the nasty under virtualization. Once you do that, you can take advantage of full resolution (and resize till your heart's content).

That doesn't work either. I followed these instructions and all I get is:

VirtualBox 2.1.0 Guest Additions installation
Detected unsupported x86 environment

Is it possible FOR ME to ever run any Linux distro? I mean, why is it imposable for me and only me to do anything?

iMav, are you actually running this on a C2D MB?

djones · « **Reply #20 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 02:06:21 »

there's really no compelling reason for a non-server machine to run a 64 bit distro-- even if you have more than 4gb ram, with PAE enabled in the kernel (which I believe it is by default on most recent distros) a 32 bit kernel can access 64 gb of ram. for 64 bit there's a mild performance advantage, and the comfort that you are utilizing all the new fancy CPU instructions, none of which you'll notice. and you *will* notice it when 64 bit binaries are not available; yes, you can install the 32 bit libraries, but then you're running in 32 bit mode...

xsphat · « **Reply #21 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 02:10:06 »

And when I try to run the x86.run file on the CD, it says I need administrator privileges, but it doesn't ask for a password and I think I am running as administrator. I know this is all so easy to do I'm being laughed at, but you have to realize, at this point I have more faith in the yeti than me getting any Linux to work on this laptop. It just pisses me off because I ran Linux on my old C1D MB with no problems. Now all I get is my ass fisted whenever I try anything.

ch_123 · « **Reply #22 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 04:42:31 »

Quote from: djones;17295

even if you have more than 4gb ram, with PAE enabled in the kernel (which I believe it is by default on most recent distros) a 32 bit kernel can access 64 gb of ram.

It's certainly not default, any 32bit Distro I've used with my 4GB machines only shows up 3GB. I've been using 64bit for about 6 months and I have zero problems with it. I have yet to come across software that is missing or doesn't work on 64bit. I don't think there's really any reason not to use 64bit if your computer can use it.

djones · « **Reply #23 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 05:25:24 »

Quote from: ch_123;17315

It's certainly not default, any 32bit Distro I've used with my 4GB machines only shows up 3GB.

Then enable it in your kernel. Actually, if its only showing up as 3gb... that might be other problems; maybe its a laptop which only supports 3gb ram?

either way, yea, it doesn't really matter whether you run 32 or 64 bit for majority of users.

djones · « **Reply #24 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 05:33:45 »

Quote

And when I try to run the x86.run file on the CD, it says I need administrator privileges, but it doesn't ask for a password and I think I am running as administrator.

try running in a terminal with sudo?

ch_123 · « **Reply #25 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 08:20:17 »

Quote from: djones;17318

Then enable it in your kernel. Actually, if its only showing up as 3gb... that might be other problems; maybe its a laptop which only supports 3gb ram?

either way, yea, it doesn't really matter whether you run 32 or 64 bit for majority of users.

Nope, I'm running 64 bit and it supports the full 4GB. I think for the average user, you might as well get the 64 bit, rather than fidgeting around with kernel settings.

iMav · « **Reply #26 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 10:24:13 »

Quote from: xsphat;17294

iMav, are you actually running this on a C2D MB?

Absolutely. If I were you, I'd grab the 8.04.1 32bit desktop ISO and give it another shot (that is the version I am currently using).

xsphat · « **Reply #27 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 11:00:29 »

Quote from: djones;17319

try running in a terminal with sudo?

I did that. I'm not cool enough for it to work.

xsphat · « **Reply #28 on:** Wed, 07 January 2009, 11:03:17 »

Quote from: iMav;17349

Absolutely. If I were you, I'd grab the 8.04.1 32bit desktop ISO and give it another shot (that is the version I am currently using).

I'll try it.

andb · « **Reply #29 on:** Tue, 13 January 2009, 01:20:26 »

This morning while thinking about upgrading my home server, which uses 32bit distro - a bit of an exception for me on the server side, I remembered one of the big reasons that I started to tend towards 32 bit Linux distros (for desktops, this server is an odd exception, but in my home who cares about performance) - OS portability. I haven't checked in a while so this might not still be the case between 32vs64 any more, but back in the day ----

You can pull the HDD out of your AMD / Intel / Via machine and swap it into a machine with another architecture, if you are using the 32bit i386 distro. You aren't locked into a platform. The 64bit distros are compiled for a specific architecture and you won't be able to just swap motherboards or move your disks around.

Correct me please if this has changed.

iMav · « **Reply #30 on:** Tue, 13 January 2009, 03:07:16 »

As long as you are using the stock kernel, you should be able to cart a 32-bit distro between any modern x86-based system (assuming linux support currently exists for the hardware, of course)

64-bit distros should compatible with any supported 64-bit system...

Speaking of portability, that is one of the main reasons I like to use VirtualBox for my virtualization. Aside from being free, the VM's are portable to any host OS with little to know hassle. (the same can't be said of Parallels nor VMWare)

zwmalone · « **Reply #31 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 13:34:39 »

Pretty much all PCs in the last 3-4 years (Prescott P4s were released in '05 (they have 64bit)) can utilise a 64bit distro. FWIW the Via Nano (I think) is the only non Intel/AMD x86 CPU that utilises 64bit technology.

itlnstln · « **Reply #32 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 13:51:41 »

I have a Core 2 Centrino platform laptop that is still 32-bit, and it is only a year old, or so (and it is a POS, but work pays for it, so I don't care much). I think Intel made quite a few 32-bit parts up until the last year even.

zwmalone · « **Reply #33 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 14:53:53 »

Forgot about those. Any DESKTOP manufactured after 2005 will be 64bit though. ANDB was talking about swapping HDs and I immediately thought about 3.5" desktop HDs. Didn't even think about laptops.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #34 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 14:54:51 »

Core 2 being 32-bit? I thought that was only Core 1?

But, every mobile Atom is 32-bit. (Note that I said mobile. The 230 and 330 are desktop parts.)

itlnstln · « **Reply #35 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 15:05:29 »

I have a 32-bit Core 2. The Core 2 Duos might be 64-bit, though. I don't keep up with these thing much anymore. I do most of my computing at work, and I just take what I can get there. Although, I have a quad-core beast (Xeon E5405 w/4 GB RAM) as my work desktop that I got to hand-pick, because in the type of work I do, I need a lot of horsepower. And, yes, it is definitely 64-bit.

zwmalone · « **Reply #36 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 15:09:20 »

All AMD parts after the XP (excluding the GEODE) are 64 bit, all Intel desktop CPUs after the prescott 5xx series (I have a 630

) are 64 bit, the Via Nano is 64bit (all other Via CPUs are 32bit). Intel laptop CPUs incluing the later P4Ms, the C2Ds and some later Celerons have 64bit instruction sets. The Centrino, Centrino 2, Core Duo, earlier P4Ms, Atom (laptop versions) and anything earlier than the P4Ms are 32 bit only.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #37 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 15:11:19 »

I want to say there were also 32-bit K8 Durons, though... mainly used by PC Chips and ECS in soldered boards.

zwmalone · « **Reply #38 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 15:16:47 »

what like kit computers? Intel has a BOXD MoBo with a low power passively cooled Celeron soldered on that retails for about $80 I think... (It's only 32 bit, it's basically an underpowered atom which is an oxymoron within itself

)

itlnstln · « **Reply #39 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 15:17:30 »

Quote from: bhtooefr;18221

I want to say there were also 32-bit K8 Durons, though... mainly used by PC Chips and ECS in soldered boards.

I wouldn't doubt it. All this talk makes me want to get a new PC. I just don't know what I would do with it once I got it. I don't game much anymore, and when I do, it's mainly SNES and N64 emulators. I use my PC mainly for Internet access and that's about it. If I need to do work, I use my laptop since it already has my software installed (and, well, it's for work). I usually spend my free time playing disc golf or enjoying my home theater.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #40 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 15:22:04 »

Quote from: zwmalone

Intel has a BOXD MoBo with a low power passively cooled Celeron soldered on that retails for about $80 I think...

I think you're referring to the D201GLY2. That's a Core 2-based single-core Celeron, not an Atom.

zwmalone · « **Reply #41 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 15:29:03 »

The atoms are based on the Conroe L C2D architecture.

bhtooefr · « **Reply #42 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 15:59:21 »

No, the Atoms are a ground-up design, and the closest relative to that design would be the P5 Pentium.

zwmalone · « **Reply #43 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 16:05:58 »

It seems you are correct. Maximum PC needs to get their stuff together, feeding me all kinds of misinformation...

bhtooefr · « **Reply #44 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 16:07:52 »

Yeah, don't read Maximum PC.

itlnstln · « **Reply #45 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 17:37:07 »

Sounds more like Maximum BS to me.

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #46 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 17:44:45 »

Quote from: itlnstln;18238

Sounds more like Maximum BS to me.

heh, I discontinued my subscription a while ago...had been getting it since when it was boot too...a shame, lol

itlnstln · « **Reply #47 on:** Wed, 14 January 2009, 17:54:32 »

These days I pretty much ignore anything with "maximum" or "extreme" in the title or if those words are used to describe something in an advertisment. Those words got so played out in the late '90s and early '00s.

cheater1034 · « **Reply #48 on:** Sat, 17 January 2009, 16:01:59 »

There is no reason not to install 64-bit if your processor is 64-bit, especially if you have > 3gb of ram

There are, however, reasons to not install ubuntu

Gentoo is my preference

Therac-25 · « **Reply #49 on:** Sat, 17 January 2009, 18:36:26 »

Quote from: cheater1034;18553

There is no reason not to install 64-bit if your processor is 64-bit, especially if you have > 3gb of ram

Currently that's the only reason, and only because PAE isn't worth the hassle to enable. You have to run a 32bit browser anyway if you care about having Flash. I'm sure there are other gotchas which might bite you in 64-bit as well.

Quote from: cheater1034;18553

There are, however, reasons to not install ubuntu

Gentoo is my preference

Lulz. I remember how broken Gentoo used to be, and that was years ago when it was popular. Having been at this for 15 years, I'll take "works" over feeling awesome about pages of compiler output. And I'd certainly recommend Ubuntu for someone coming over from OSX for the first time.

News:

Author Topic: 64 or 32 bit Linux? (Read 11947 times)