Linux Difference Between Ubuntu AMD64 and i386?

My opinions, There are two reasons why you might want to use a 32 bit Linux:

1) You are ram limited say to 512M or 1G.

2) You want flash gpu acceleration.

32 bit uses slighty less ram. Obviously in the case of 1) the cpu is probably not going to be 64 bit anyway. I built a mini mail server using a via cpu with 1G ram, So i had to go 32 bit.

2) Annoyingly IIRC flash gpu acceleration doesn't currently work on 64 bit. Hopefully that will change soon.

Still with modern hardware I would go with 64bit every time If I could.

 

This rule of thumb made sense when most systems had 256MB of RAM, but it makes little sense when you've got 4GB+. What kind of usage would cause a system with 4GB of memory use 8GB of swap? Also, with the 2.6 kernel, filesystem overheads have largely been removed from using a swap file so it's just as quick (source).

 

No it isn't

Using 64 bit just for the RAM is a waste. 64bit should be used for it's more efficient instruction set and other optimalisations... If the CPU is not 64 bit ready, it just won't work...

Hence, multilib

HD storage space also got updated, and is dirt cheap now. I have a 4GB desktop at work and it swaps on a regular base...

I just do not like the idea of the kernel bypassing FS code... Seems like an accident waiting to happen when you need to do FS recovery... Recover tools know nothing about the swap area and it's mapping, and will hence treat it as a normal part of the FS... That, and a swap partition just seems so much neater and safer...

 

Using 64 bit just for the RAM is a waste. 64bit should be used for it's more efficient instruction set and other optimalisations... If the CPU is not 64 bit ready, it just won't work...

Hence, multilib

I just do not like the idea of the kernel bypassing FS code... Seems like an accident waiting to happen when you need to do FS recovery... Recover tools know nothing about the swap area and it's mapping, and will hence treat it as a normal part of the FS... That, and a swap partition just seems so much neater and safer...[/QUOTE]



Glider so what are you suggesting?? should i have something to backup both OSes just in case of failure and stuff like that??

 

Yes. Sorry. It was late and my phone was trying to be helpful. I meant AMD.

 

hahaha dont worry about it Bear.. sometimes phones help out a bit too much..

 

There is no reason not to go with 64-bit if your computer can handle it. As said before, multilib lets 32-bit apps run, but I have always found problems with Flash in Firefox. Sometimes youtube controls wouldn't work, games wouldn't play etc. But Linux is developing so fast that Flash will work soon (if it isn't already).

 

well the 64 bit will be a bit too much for me right now.. right now im going to be a new user for Ubuntu so i will have to learn how to run the 32 bit one.. but when i feel that i have gained enough experience with Ubuntu 32-bit one.. im going to try for the 64-bit..

 

There's really so little difference setting them up and so much performance difference that you'd be a fool to go 32-bit.

64 is where it's at.

 

IMO there is no difference, at all, in either setup or operation.




Ubuntu is even easier to setup than Windows.

In my little experiments with linux, I've never had to install special drivers. Just install OS, run, works.

 

well the computer that im getting will be a 64-bit windows 7.. but im not familiar with Ubuntu so im going to go 32 for that..

 

But why? That's like saying "I'm unfamiliar with Ubuntu so I'll choose a blue theme for the desktop."

This isn't windows, 64-bit Ubuntu has been extremely stable since at least 2007 when I started using it. I'm told it was ok in 2004. The only issue I've ever gad was Flash, which was installed by clicking on a script rather than using apt-get. After googling for this post, turns out there's a 64-bit flash package in the repos now. I've learned (and upgraded) thanks to this thread.

 

So are you suggesting that i should get the 64 bit one??

 

Definitely.

Now that flash is cleared up (even though it probably has been for a while, silly me) there's no reason not to. It uses slightly more RAM but I take it that you have decent enough hardware seeing as you're considering a GNOME environment. Of course, this is negated as it needs to be 64-bit if you want to be able to address all of your ram in the first place. That, and the performance boost is quite significant. This is almost two years old, things have improved since then by a lot, but even that shows a boost when moving to 64-bit.

 

alrighty.. but what should i do about the 32? i already torrented the 32 AND the 64 bits..

 

Not **my link** quite....**my link** A PAE kernel in Linux will allow the OS to access more than 4gb of ram, but it is no where near as efficient as a 64bit os.

 

Go 64 bit, you won't notice the difference on your side, but the internals will actually use the hardware you bought

 

actually i havent got the computer yet.. just need to save up enough money to get the computer lol

 

well it looks like im not going to be able to buy the laptop after all.. something came up.. sorry for the thread bump

 

Been running 10.10 64bit ultra on my new rig for months and its been a very smooth ride so far. Best version of Ununtu so far. I use this for almost everything. I also run the 32bit 10.10 desktop edition on my Acer One netbook, and with the exception of the crappy battery indicator, it meets all my needs and its much quicker than w7 Starter and very slick.