Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Is Close To Recommending 64-Bit By Default

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Ubuntu Is Close To Recommending 64-Bit By Default

    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

  • duby229
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Somehow died? Anyone who was aware of tech at the time knows exactly why they died. It's called the cheap chinese capacitors that flooded the market around that timeframe which were based off an incomplete design sold to them by a turncoat japanese individual.

    This as a result eventually ended up killing almost all motherboards that were produced at the time thus putting that generation into the grave.
    Oh yeah, I remember those events specifically. Then afterwards you couldn't buy a board that didnt have "100% JAPANESE CAPACITORS" plastered all over the box. That became a huge selling point for years until everyone forgot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by vk512 View Post
    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.
    Somehow died? Anyone who was aware of tech at the time knows exactly why they died. It's called the cheap chinese capacitors that flooded the market around that timeframe which were based off an incomplete design sold to them by a turncoat japanese individual.

    This as a result eventually ended up killing almost all motherboards that were produced at the time thus putting that generation into the grave.
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 09-03-2013, 06:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • doom_Oo7
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • vk512
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • doom_Oo7
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • vk512
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • brent
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X