A Call For Ending 32-bit Ubuntu Desktop ISOs

[smitty3268]

If you cant run an os + desktop environment on something less than 10 years old, then there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with your os + desktop environment.

I think the question is how many 32-bit cpu's have been made in the last 10 years?

Intel's mobile chips switched to 64-bit 10.5 years ago. The Prescott and Athlon64 chips were earlier than that.

I think maybe there were some Atom chips briefly that didn't support it?

[SaucyJack]

32-bit needs to die. I'm tired of having a bunch of 32-bit crap on my system because a few people are clinging to 10+ year old CPUs. 64-bit is better and faster, 32-bit was obsolete 10 years ago.

[slacka]

Not only do 64 bit os take more ram, the cpu requires more effort. Also my atom is 32 bit. This netbook is from 2009 or 2010, somewhere around there.

That sounds like something my drunk uncle would say, not "Linux" people on Phoronix. This is utter nonsense. Yes 64-bit wastes RAM because of 64-bit addressing. However, 64-bit mode in general is faster and more efficient. This is because 64-bit enables and has a minimum of SSE2 optimizations. That's why x32 ABI exists. It gives you the best of both worlds.

[slacka]

32-bit needs to die. I'm tired of having a bunch of 32-bit crap on my system because a few people are clinging to 10+ year old CPUs. 64-bit is better and faster, 32-bit was obsolete 10 years ago.

NO! x86-64 needs to die! Long live x32 ABI!

[slacka]

I think the question is how many 32-bit cpu's have been made in the last 10 years?

Intel's mobile chips switched to 64-bit 10.5 years ago. The Prescott and Athlon64 chips were earlier than that.

I think maybe there were some Atom chips briefly that didn't support it?

No that is not the question. I do not run 32-bit Ubuntu because my CPU requires it. I run it because 64-bit wastes 20-30% of my system's RAM.

[jacob]

NO! x86-64 needs to die! Long live x32 ABI!

The x32 ABI could have had its uses. Unfortunately no distro ever seemed interested in supporting it.

[F1esDgSdUTYpm0iy]

I run it because 64-bit wastes 20-30% of my system's RAM.

Actually, I can think of only 2 reasons 64-bit would use more ram than 32-bit.

1 -- Actually, you're running a multiarch OS and it's ALSO loading 32-bit libraries. So, both 64-bit AND 32-bit. Obviously, that uses more RAM. Stick to pure 64-bit, problem solved.
2 -- The addresses themselves; any pointer in 64-bit will obviously require twice as much space in memory as a 32-bit pointer. However, this difference should be trivial at best. Maybe in the 100Mb range tops for a running desktop with applications loaded.

[Luke_Wolf]

No that is not the question. I do not run 32-bit Ubuntu because my CPU requires it. I run it because 64-bit wastes 20-30% of my system's RAM.

If you have a system where the overhead of 8 byte pointers instead of 4 byte pointers is a problem then you need to upgrade your system and don't really have an excuse. Whether that means just buying more ram or a new system I don't really care, but software developers, software maintainers, and other users shouldn't have to suffer with the chains of 32-bit binaries because of you and people like you being cheapskates.

[SaucyJack]

No that is not the question. I do not run 32-bit Ubuntu because my CPU requires it. I run it because 64-bit wastes 20-30% of my system's RAM.

No. What's happening here is that YOU are wasting MY RAM by keeping my computer in the dark ages with 32-bit libs on top of my 64-bit libs. Buy one extra gig of RAM.

[caligula]

If you have a system where the overhead of 8 byte pointers instead of 4 byte pointers is a problem then you need to upgrade your system and don't really have an excuse. Whether that means just buying more ram or a new system I don't really care, but software developers, software maintainers, and other users shouldn't have to suffer with the chains of 32-bit binaries because of you and people like you being cheapskates.

That's a stupid argument. Sometimes you just can't update. You have a perfectly mint condition laptop with too little RAM. Say it's an expensive Macbook and otherwise totally fine, but not enough RAM (1/2 GB) and no way to upgrade. You could argue that mainstream distros don't need to care about 32-bit systems anymore, but surely those systems can still use tons of software. 32 bits hasn't died in any way yet. Most MIPS/ARM boxes are 32 bit. And will be, for years.