Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Is Close To Recommending 64-Bit By Default

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

  • Ubuntu Is Close To Recommending 64-Bit By Default

    Phoronix: Ubuntu Is Close To Recommending 64-Bit By Default

    While x86_64 hardware has been very common for years and it's now almost impossible to find new PC hardware that is x86-only, the Ubuntu download pages have continued to recommend the 32-bit version of Ubuntu Linux by default for new desktop installations. Fortunately, that may finally change...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQ0OTA

  • #2
    Not sure why it already hasn't, almost every PC you buy will be 64 bit by now... actually, that has probably been true for 4-5 years now.
    My last 32 bit processor was probably purchased over 10 years ago.

    Comment


    • #3
      My tablet PC is 32-bit, and I bought it two years ago. Then again, it isn't capable of handling Unity anyway, due to Poulsbo graphics.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is long overdue. 64 bit OSes should be used on all hardware that supports them. I have been using 64 bit Linux since Nov 2007 with very few issues, which all had disappeared by 2009 or so.

        Comment


        • #5
          Not that I use Ubuntu anymore, but I imagine they'd not abandon the 32-bit spins until they no longer need to support 32-bit libraries on the 64-bit spins... and for most people, I imagine the holdup on that is supporting Skype, which after so many years, still lacks a 64-bit build.

          Comment


          • #6
            Do it! But wait until ARMv8 hardware comes out. On the ARM that only about then we begin to have hardware powerful enough for the full Ubuntu anyway, so might as well go 64 bit-only for all architectures.

            This is also why I was hoping Canonical would wait until there are 64 bit ARM chips, before they release Ubuntu Touch, so they only support that for 3 years, as they said for Ubuntu Edge.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Krysto View Post
              Do it! But wait until ARMv8 hardware comes out. On the ARM that only about then we begin to have hardware powerful enough for the full Ubuntu anyway, so might as well go 64 bit-only for all architectures.

              This is also why I was hoping Canonical would wait until there are 64 bit ARM chips, before they release Ubuntu Touch, so they only support that for 3 years, as they said for Ubuntu Edge.
              phones / hybrids will also be 32bit for a while.

              Comment


              • #8
                In the 32bit vs 64bit benchmarks, were the 64bit benches using 64bit binaries?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by brent View Post
                  This is long overdue. 64 bit OSes should be used on all hardware that supports them. I have been using 64 bit Linux since Nov 2007 with very few issues, which all had disappeared by 2009 or so.
                  I'm in a similar boat. I've been using 64bit since early 2004 and there were some issue getting multlib working early onand some other issues with gcc, but has been good for a long time. It was one of the smoothest architecture transitions I've ever witnessed. It was much smoother than the transition from 16bit to 32bit. (of course that was before linux's time, or rather at the beginning of it's time)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by madjr View Post
                    phones / hybrids will also be 32bit for a while.
                    How long do you think it will take before Imagination Technologies (PowerVR...) will leverage their MIPS acquisition? They've bought over 20 years of, in production, 64bit RISC with existing Linux and Android support for a reason...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well it is really weird that 64 bit is not the recommended version as you can not boot 32 bit on all systems sold with Win8 preinstalled without enabling the CSM (Secure Boot is basically impossible with CSM enabled, but there are motherboards which support that for legacy gfx cards - you need GOP mode for pure UEFI). So when you want to boot in UEFI mode then this will only work with 64 bit. Hard to recommend 32 bit in those times There are only some 32 bit UEFI Atoms which can not use 64 bit, Intel made a huge mistake to buy 3rd party graphics without working 64 bit drivers, but thats why this exists. I would never buy this crap for Linux.
                      Last edited by Kano; 08-29-2013, 08:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Why is Google Earth still 32-bit?

                        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.
                        Last edited by Candide; 08-29-2013, 09:00 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                          My tablet PC is 32-bit, and I bought it two years ago. Then again, it isn't capable of handling Unity anyway, due to Poulsbo graphics.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            About Time

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think this is overdue. I can understand that recommending the 32-bit version by default is the "safe" choice because it will work with both 32-bit and 64-bit CPUs, but in the x86 world 64-bit hardware has been more common for so long now that I have a hard time imagining that those who use 32-bit x86 don't know they need to look for 32-bit ISOs explicitly.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X