Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Is Close To Recommending 64-Bit By Default

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kivada View Post
    Is your tablet x86? 99% of the tablets on the market are ARM based and are thus 32-bit as there isn't a 64-bit ARM CPU on the market yet.
    Yes, it's x86. It's an Intel Oak Trail platform.

    Comment


    • #17
      Ubuntu is Debian based and has

      Ubuntu is Debian based and has all Wheezy features like multiarch. All those 32bit applications now easily can install their needed 32bit libs ...
      Perhaps some repacking issues of those remain: specifying the proper deps.

      Comment


      • #18
        Skype and Google Earth are definitely two reasons to stay with 32 bit if you want to stay out of trouble. When I install Ubuntu on friends' computers I always try to install the 32 bit version, it saves me a number of future support calls in the future.

        Personally I run the latest 64 bit version of Linux Mint MATE, mostly because I want to run 64 bit virtual machines. And I have a enough fast connection to download and update all compat-libs.

        Ubuntu Server I have been running more or less exclusively on 64 bit since 2005, on a Pentium 4, without hassle.

        Comment


        • #19
          Ubuntu is close to losing its virginity.

          Comment


          • #20
            I think the claim that the performance improvements come from using 64 bit are wrong or at least exaggerated. Most of the speedup will rather come from the fact that all AMD64 CPUs support SSE/SSE2 so the compiler enables these instruction sets by default when building for 64 bit targets. So the same effect could have been achieved by offering packages in a version compiled for SSE2, which would also benefit 32 bit CPUs like the Pentium M, pre-Nocona Pentium 4 and the "Paris"-Athlon XP.

            Here is a post with an example of the gains that are possible with compiler flags for modern CPUs: https://plus.google.com/112147667258...ts/AedcG5oxhvA

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Candide View Post
              I agree that 64-bit is better. But one app that I really need to work is Google Earth, and for some reason it just doesn't want to install in 64-bit. Does anyone have a clue why that is? I've searched for answers, and from what people say, it seems that Google Earth is still programmed as 32-bit. Even the 64-bit binary that can be downloaded from Google actually requires a whole bunch of 32-bit libraries to be installed, and even then it just crashes on me. That just makes no sense. If anything, I would expect Google to abandon the 32-bit version, rather than making it the only version that actually functions.
              HI

              I was able to install google earth 64bit on ubuntu 12.04.2

              I did get a slight hiccup, the .deb installer failed and i had to sudo apt-get install lsb-core first as the .deb failed to do so ,i then tried the 64bit .deb and it installed without any problems

              I didn't notice any 32 bit libraries needed but to be fair i already have the ia32-libs installed

              Comment


              • #22
                32bit is here to stay (how long did Windows keep 16bit apps?)

                Originally posted by Kivada View Post
                Is your tablet x86? 99% of the tablets on the market are ARM based and are thus 32-bit as there isn't a 64-bit ARM CPU on the market yet.

                Now in a year the first 64-bit ARM CPUs will be out and even AMD will be producing them, however, they will be server oriented. Things like website and email servers that don't see allot of traffic can be run on ARM for far lower power and cooling requirements then even the lowest power X86 CPU.
                Spot on. Also Netbooks were the last wave of 32bit only harware (Celeron then Atom, and some AMD too) around 2008-2011, that is before the tablets took over. It seems preposterous to abandon 32bit support anytime soon. Let's remember that older hardware rejuvenation has been the broaden Linux use beyond the geeks/tech-savvy people.


                At 1-2GB of RAM I don't see the need to switch from 32 to 64bit. Quite the contrary (lower RAM use). Anyway people who would benefit most from 64bit have 'war machines' well above the usual 4GB RAM and with dedicated graphics, SSDs and so on. So yes it makes no sense to default to 32bit for new users, but 32bit is still good for many who can stay with the same machine for 5y and over.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by vk512 View Post
                  Let's remember that older hardware rejuvenation has been the broaden Linux use beyond the geeks/tech-savvy people.
                  Yes, but older hardware rejuvenation is CLEARLY not the focus of Ubuntu. Run Puppy Linux if you want to rejuvenate an old pc (even if I don't see the point... I think it is better to buy a modern, slim, and not very powerful computer, like an i3-based one, but that will consume MUCH less power thus costing less in the long term than an ol' Pentium IV)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by vk512 View Post
                    (Celeron then Atom, and some AMD too)
                    AMD netbooks were always 64-bit capable:

                    http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AM...25LAV13GM.html

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Most Intel Atom CPU models are in fact also capable of 64 bit. The initial netbook CPU models (N2xx) aren't, but all nettop Atoms can do 64 bit, and later netbook models (N4xx, N2xxx) are 64 bit capable as well.
                      Last edited by brent; 08-30-2013, 04:07 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                        I think it is better to buy a modern, slim, and not very powerful computer, like an i3-based one, but that will consume MUCH less power thus costing less in the long term than an ol' Pentium IV)
                        Pentium IV, that's definitely disingenuous of you since everybody knows these were real heaters. 90% of the people are ok with an old computer from 2007 to do some surfing and a little bit of skype or office too. Buying a new computer here is really wasting money, but being stuck with a bloated OS as Vista (or even 7 for those who took the bait to upgrade an old machine) makes it the way to go.

                        So Ubuntu doesn't focus on older hardware? Then why did they try to set a 14.04 release date close to XP's EOL early next April? Sure it is not at all a focus for development (portable devices and cross-device is) but it is a prominent communication axis. Note that I was talking about old computers, not antique ones with under 512MB RAM (I used to put Slitaz on these but they didn't make it past 2010).

                        Old computers still running XP (or Vista) can work very well with Mint or Xubuntu and look as a fresh AND full-fledged computer. Lots of people have simply installed one of these at their parents/grand-parents/... for the better (except this population will hardly advocate for GNU Linux, open source... since they simply have no education there and are plenty happy as passive consumers).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I would really like to see how Unity performs on a 2007 walmart-grade desktop. Damn, the thing must be full of dust right now xD.

                          Seriously :
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...pation_figures

                          Not a single Core 2 was under 65 watts while Haswell can sometimes do as low as 15W (not on the i7 ofc).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View Post
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...pation_figures

                            Not a single Core 2 was under 65 watts while Haswell can sometimes do as low as 15W (not on the i7 ofc).
                            Thermal design is one thing, actual consumption (per watt efficiency) is another story. You don't read this on the CPU box, it needs testing. Now I guess Pentium III machines somehow died a while ago and PIV certainly died earlier from global warming. I am currently using an Athlon from 2005 (3200+) at 67w and Core 2 are good too with Xubuntu. As I said 90% of the people not playing mind-numbing games could be perfectly happy with such a smooth, if old, config.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I don't say that it would be less smooth, I say that for the same amount of "smoothness", a modern computer would use far less power. Hell, you don't even need a discrete gpu anymore to have decent performance in non-intensive 3D performance.

                              Just look at Intel's NUC for instance...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by vk512 View Post
                                So Ubuntu doesn't focus on older hardware? Then why did they try to set a 14.04 release date close to XP's EOL early next April? Sure it is not at all a focus for development (portable devices and cross-device is) but it is a prominent communication axis. Note that I was talking about old computers, not antique ones with under 512MB RAM (I used to put Slitaz on these but they didn't make it past 2010).
                                Oh Yeah because back in 2004-2005 Cannonical definitely planned to set their release date close to Windows XP's by setting up releasing one of their biyearly releases in April. I'm sorry but that argument is just absolutely disingenuous.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X