FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


32 vs 64 bit Ubuntu





jwellsy
I've never used a 64-bit OS. Are there any drawbacks to running a 64-bit OS on a 64 bit capable system? I'm going to use Ubuntu on a new build. I'm just debating on wether to go with the 32 or 64 bit version. Will I run into application/program incompatabilities if I run the 64-bit OS? My guess is that the 64-bit sys/OSl will run in what ever mode it needs to to take advantage of multi core cpu's..

- Asus M2N68-AM SE2 mobo with AMD64 architecture that enables simultaneous 32-bit and 64-bit computing and supports DDR2 - 1066MHz memory
- AMD 2.7 Ghz dual core Athlon X2 AMD64Architecture CPU.
brokenadvice
I have very little expertise with linux, but I would assume 64 bit Linux would run quite well on a 64 bit system. The reason people don't run 64 bit windows, is driver and program incompatibility. Since most drivers have to be compiled several ways for Linux, I would assume you would have a pretty large supply of 64 bit drivers.
jwellsy
One snag I've run into so far is verifying the Bios version on the mobo. Asus has you select your OS and the only options given are XP, XP 64, Vista, Vista 64, and other. I didn't find linux 64 version listed under other.
http://support.asus.com/download/download.aspx
Model: M2N68-AM SE2

There is a version that says:
M2N68-AM SE2 BIOS 0502
1.Updating the BIOS with the latest BIOS version will enable the motherboard to support AMD AM3 945/955 CPU.
2.The motherboard cannot flash older BIOS files once you update the BIOS with the latest BIOS version.

My cpu and mobo are called AMD socket AM2+ . Maybe I should put in a help ticket to ASUS and ask which one I should use with Ubuntu 64.
ocalhoun
Using linux 64 bit has none of the disadvantages of windows 64 bit, so you should use 64 bit linux whenever you can.

(linux was running on 64 bit systems years before any 64 bit windows version existed.)

jwellsy wrote:
One snag I've run into so far is verifying the Bios version on the mobo. Asus has you select your OS and the only options given are XP, XP 64, Vista, Vista 64, and other. I didn't find linux 64 version listed under other.

Just select each one in turn, and see which works best.
I'd put my money on 'XP 64' working the best.

I think you'll also get a much better response from an ubuntu help forum than from the motherboard company.
AftershockVibe
I use it. It works just as well as 32bit Ubuntu.

As others have said, the main problem with 64bit Windows is driver support. Although I'd never say it isn't possbile, this is a lot less of a problem for Linux - as most of the drivers are open source they can be recompiled easily enough.
Asis
First of all, you have to check yourself. What's your experience with *nix operating systems?
I asked the same question like you did, and many people advised me x64.
Yes, it seems to be faster than x86, but regarding to software... crap.
Almost every common program for linus has his "brother" for x64, but some less known applications doesn't. I had a lot of problems with compiling the stuff, readyng so many errors about missing packages so I gave up. If you're linux newbie, pick x86, if you're linux fan (it means you like challanges such as compiling etc) pick 64 bit.
jwellsy
My experience with Linux is pretty much nill. I've booted a a knoppix CD a few times and poked around on a puppy distro. But, I've never had to deal with linux drivers. My motivation here is that I don't feel like giving Bill Gates another $100. This is my way of redistributing wealth.

Another thing that's not very clear to me is that when a new program comes out like
http://callofjuarez.us.ubi.com/#/main/trailers . Even though they have a pc version this game, I have no idea what it would take to run it on a 64-bit Ubuntu machine. My extreamly uneducated view is that the only software you can run is stuff made just for linux. And, that newly released stuff probably won't work.

I have no idea about when or how you would need to compile programs to run with linux. I have used compiler programs back in the days before pdf's, but that's about it.
AftershockVibe
You shouldn't need to worry about compiling anything - you're distribution (the Ubuntu guys) will do that for you. The Linux distributions you'll want will all come with some form of package manager which will pick the right software to run on your system.

Sadly "PC" versions on games mean they run on Windows. There are a few exceptions like Unreal and Eve Online that do Linux variants specifically. However, the most popular games tend to eventually run under Cedega (http://www.cedega.com/) but that costs money. You can probably get them to run under Wine (http://appdb.winehq.org/ -- on which Cedega is based) but it will take a bit of faffing.
PleoMaster
I love ubuntu i uset to run it on my old computer, But unfortunatly my new one will not let me run it for some strange reason :\ `
Agent ME
Asis wrote:
Yes, it seems to be faster than x86, but regarding to software... crap.
Almost every common program for linus has his "brother" for x64, but some less known applications doesn't. I had a lot of problems with compiling the stuff, readyng so many errors about missing packages so I gave up. If you're linux newbie, pick x86, if you're linux fan (it means you like challanges such as compiling etc) pick 64 bit.

What stuff did you have to compile? I did not have to compile anything to make my system work out of the box, and I'm running Ubuntu 64-bit.
I can imagine some people might need to compile a driver for their wireless card or other hardware, but that has nothing to do with 32-bit vs 64-bit. They're going to have to compile it either way.

jwellsy wrote:
Another thing that's not very clear to me is that when a new program comes out like
http://callofjuarez.us.ubi.com/#/main/trailers . Even though they have a pc version this game, I have no idea what it would take to run it on a 64-bit Ubuntu machine. My extreamly uneducated view is that the only software you can run is stuff made just for linux. And, that newly released stuff probably won't work.

This also isn't a 32-bit vs 64-bit problem. This is a Windows vs Linux problem. However, many Windows programs and games can be run under Wine.


I run 64-bit, and I have no problems. I can't imagine any reason to suggest to a new user to not run 64-bit if they have a supporting CPU and hardware.
jwellsy
Agent, are you saying that applications don't care about 32 vs 64,but only device drivers and bios' do? This isn't a trick question, I'm just dense.
jwellsy
Well, the build and 64 bit Ubuntu install went very smooth. I'm loving Ubuntu so far. That was the easiest OS install I've seen. Built in firefox and open office, that is cool.

I should of done this a long time ago. I dought that I'll ever give Bill Gates any more of my money.

Thanks everyone for helping me overcome my fears.
microkosm
For me the biggest advantage to using 64 bit linux (in your case ubuntu) is to utilize all 4 gigabytes of my RAM. 32-bit linux will only recognize 3 gigabytes max and this is also a problem with 32 bit windows.

Right now there are some slight annoyances with 64 bit linux such as 32-bit only binaries for certain software such as java or adobe reader. Of course there are workarounds and with a mainstream distro such as ubuntu you shouldn't really have serious problems.

64-bit doesn't offer any noticeable speed advantages at this point because the software out there doesn't take advantage of 64 bit to its full potential. Having more cores in the processer would help although noticeable speed differences dissappear depending on what software you use even between two cores and four cores.
AftershockVibe
Quote:
32-bit linux will only recognize 3 gigabytes max


That's not true if you're using a sensible kernel (most do not have this limitation). Windows Server editions also have a workaround for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Operating_system_support


Of course, this is a work around and not the optimal way to do things.
xyos
actually it runs very well and compatibility its not a problem flash released 64 bits plugins and alsa its working fine, at least on kubuntu karmic
microkosm
Quote:
Quote:
32-bit linux will only recognize 3 gigabytes max


That's not true if you're using a sensible kernel (most do not have this limitation). Windows Server editions also have a workaround for this.


I use arch linux and you have to custom compile a 32-bit kernel in order to enable support for more than 3 gigs. Of course arch is a KISS/tinkerer's distro so maybe more mainstream distros like ubuntu have this standard. Windows server I know nothing about but I'll take your word that there are ways to bypass this limitation.

To address the OP's concern though, you mind as well go with 64bit but keep a 32-bit iso handy just in case.
Related topics
Dual core or 64 bit?
64 bit OS?
Macintosh or MacIntel? 64 bit chip
Question about Core Duo and Core 2 Duo
windows xp 64 bit
Help me find 64 Bit Freeware!
Windows 7 64 Bit issues
dual boot win xp 32bit with vista 64 bit
64-bit guest on 32-bit host in VirtualBox
Windows 7 64 bit in Dell Studio 1555
broadcom wireless drivers linux
Windows 32 bit or 64 bit
Win 7 FROM 32 to 64 bit
alternative way to install 32 bit drivers on 64 bit
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.