Valve Reveals More Steam Linux Distribution Details

[duby229]

32 bit apps can access a full 4GB virtual address space on 64 bit OS's.

I'd say 2GB of RAM is around where i'd say it makes sense to stick with a 32bit OS instead of using the 64 bit version.

Even if you did only have 2GB RAM, a 64bit OS allows to use the full register table. Double the general registers and also double the SSE registers as well. If the applications you need arent compute heavy then it probably wont matter, but it is still an advantage of 64bit over 32bit that applies even at smaller memory amounts.

[smitty3268]

It actually requires you to have a larger amount of libs on your system and can make things (unnecessarily) more complicated. So if you have less than 4GB RAM, I only see disadvantages in installing a 64bit OS. Or what advantages do you see? I see none.

32 bit apps can access a full 4GB virtual address space on 64 bit OS's.

I'd say 2GB of RAM is around where i'd say it makes sense to stick with a 32bit OS instead of using the 64 bit version.

[Nobu]

Although it's not necessarily always the case, 64-bit distributions often compile their 64-bit packages with more advanced instructions (SSE, for example), which may improve performance in certain programs.

[Nuc!eoN]

That isnt the real question though.... Heres the real one....

What's the benefit of sticking to 32bit when a 64bit multilib system can still support 32bit?

Sooner or later all systems will have more than 4GB of RAM. It really isnt the larger registers that matter, in some cases it hurts, but it is the number of registers that do. A multilib system that can use either 32bit or 64bit depending on whether or not it makes sense is going to be a good idea even if you don't have 4GB.

It actually requires you to have a larger amount of libs on your system and can make things (unnecessarily) more complicated. So if you have less than 4GB RAM, I only see disadvantages in installing a 64bit OS. Or what advantages do you see? I see none.

[r1348]

Why would you be bothered by that?

I don't like where Ubuntu is going, and a sizeable part of linux users with it.

[duby229]

What's the benefit of 64bit if you have less than 4GB RAM on your system?

That isnt the real question though.... Heres the real one....

What's the benefit of sticking to 32bit when a 64bit multilib system can still support 32bit?

Sooner or later all systems will have more than 4GB of RAM. It really isnt the larger registers that matter, in some cases it hurts, but it is the number of registers that do. A multilib system that can use either 32bit or 64bit depending on whether or not it makes sense is going to be a good idea even if you don't have 4GB.

[Nuc!eoN]

Anyone else bothered about the amount of 32 bit users out there?

What's the benefit of 64bit if you have less than 4GB RAM on your system?

[duby229]

You shouldn't imply that Ubuntu users are retarded... In any case, Ubuntu desktop (i.e. Unity) has had a lot of bad press, but Ubuntu as a distribution (which is I assume what's being reported here, since there are no numbers for Kubuntu, etc.) is still quite reasonable.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not calling Ubuntu users retarded. Instead I'm saying that a certain percentage of any userbase is going to be retarded, and lets face it, most of that group will be using Ubuntu.

I guess as a function of its target market it simply attracts a larger percentage of retarded users than other distributions. Before Ubuntu it was Mandrake. It simply is a matter of what retarded people think is going to be the easiest to use. And I'm not saying that retarded users are bad... As a matter of fact I welcome them. The bigger the userbase the better, retarded or not.

I will stick to the distro I prefer and their presence will attract more software development which I can benefit from and I still won't have to deal with any of them. It isnt like Windows where you only get what you're given... I can use what I prefer and they can use what they prefer.... And in the end when software and games are made available that wouldnt have otherwise we all benefit.

[FLHerne]

Looks like 64-bit is the standard by now. Can we not just forget about 32-bit for AMD/Intel (finally)?

Netbooks...
Almost all up until quite recently, and even now a significant proportion of the damn things.
Admittedly a lot have PowerVR graphics and are a nuisance to use Linux on anyway, but there are still a lot of potential and actual users there.

Also, there are still a fair few Pentium M laptops (and some P4 desktops, although I haven't seen many recently) in existence - mostly with XP*, and not really suited to Vista or Win7 but quite happy with some XFCE/LXDE distro. Quite a lot of those are owned by students etc, who are much more likely to be using Linux than your average PC owner*.

*NB: Such statements are based on what I see as a permanent resident of a university town in the UK, and might not properly represent global trends. I don't see why they shouldn't, though.

[ChrisXY]

but Ubuntu as a distribution (which is I assume what's being reported here, since there are no numbers for Kubuntu, etc.) is still quite reasonable.

Try installing 32 bit boost libs in a 64 bit ubuntu. That's their multi arch support. (On archlinux it simply goes in /usr/lib32 and it works.)