Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Finally! Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Will Recommend 64-bit

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,636

    Default Finally! Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Will Recommend 64-bit

    Phoronix: Finally! Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Will Recommend 64-bit

    There's some good news coming out of the last day of the Ubuntu 12.04 LTS developer summit. During a session that's going on right now, it was decided that the 64-bit version of Ubuntu (beginning with 12.04 Precise) will finally be the recommended version over the 32-bit Ubuntu...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAxMTQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    The only things legacy 32-bit support was ever important for, for me:

    Legacy operating system (Windows) software (WINE)

    Adobe Trash taking 7 years to support x86-64.

    Both of those cases worked fine with ia32-libs.

    Since most native Linux software is open source, the majority of it can be compiled (and runs) on many architectures and x86-64 has never been any different.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    53

    Post 64bit is not faster on all architectures - it is on x86, not on SPARC, etc.

    I am using 64-bit XUbuntu since 2007 and if there was some minor settings on first release I used on 64-bit, every release after that worked flawlessly on 64-bit
    (I bougth AMD 64-bit CPU to also have AMD-V virtualization instructions, because inel always charged premium for intel-VT, same like AMD mostly supports ECC RAM and intel needs Xeon or just Xeon motherboard+i3)

    Since 64-bit IS faster on x86-64 architecture (named amd64 for both Intel and Amd), is uses a slightly more RAM, but is your only choice on modern 64-bit Machines with 4+GB RAM.
    I would just like to stress one thing:
    If 64bit computing is faster on x86 architecture, that is not also the case on other architectures.

    Per example, on SPARC (T1 and T2 Cpus are also GPLed under OpenSparc) , 64-bit is always a bit slower, but due to the need for more RAM, new systems on SPARC with Solaris (and Illumos, with OpenIndiana in future) tend to be (recommended) 64-bit only, while Desktop applications remain to be 32bit etc. SPARC is 64-bit from,like, forever btw.

    Btw: Gimme gimme gimme
    SPARC OpenBIOS/openfirmware Nvidia graphics
    ..after midnight ..
    and OpenSparc machines manufacturer,
    ..chasing shadows away.
    Last edited by Markore; 11-04-2011 at 02:46 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    221

    Default

    Finally! Now maybe in 2015 when the last LTS is no longer supported it won't be necessary to package 32-bit linux binaries anymore.

    And the few companies which think making 32-bit linux packages is enough can switch to 64-bit.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    France
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Markore View Post
    If 64bit computing is faster on x86 architecture, that is not also the case on other architectures.
    This is obvious. In most case if a AMD64 app is faster than an x86-32 app is because the compiler use the registers added by the AMD64 arch. Nothing to do with the "64bit" size of the integer/pointer, at least in most app (which doesn't use 64-bit integer).

    64-bit != AMD64

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyborg16 View Post
    Finally! Now maybe in 2015 when the last LTS is no longer supported it won't be necessary to package 32-bit linux binaries anymore.

    And the few companies which think making 32-bit linux packages is enough can switch to 64-bit.
    I think WINE is the last major consumer of 32-bit backwards compatibility on Linux, unless you count a few proprietary Linux games and applications that most people don't use.

    Even if Windows ever gets its act together and the majority of its users are moved to x86-64, there are still literally tens of thousands of applications spanning over 20 years (and more keep being produced since most people using Windows are still running their processor as a really fast 386, give or take the odd improvement of the microarchitectures that followed it).

    I think for many, many years, 32-bit compatibility will be a nice thing to have because of proprietary Windows software, most of which is no longer maintained or supported, and will never have a native x86-64 port.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    162

    Default Memory

    I know ram today is cheap, but if you're low, take into account that using 64bit means an average of 20% plus of ram used due to bigger pointer size along with larger executables -> more time needed to load applications -> maybe less desktop responsiveness.
    Test here:
    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=873251
    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t...ighlight-.html

    64bit are also faster because of default compiler optimizations, but those could be used on 32bit too.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kokoko3k View Post
    I know ram today is cheap, but if you're low, take into account that using 64bit means an average of 20% plus of ram used due to bigger pointer size along with larger executables -> more time needed to load applications -> maybe less desktop responsiveness.
    Test here:
    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=873251
    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t...ighlight-.html

    64bit are also faster because of default compiler optimizations, but those could be used on 32bit too.
    Nonsense. Get some new FUD while you're out. The difference is more like 1-2% in most cases.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,058

    Default

    What is the state of 32-bit compatibility on 64-bit Linux?

    I am still using 32-bit as I play lots of old games, mostly native titles but also some through WINE, so I would need those to run without any fuss before I would consider installing a 64-bit system. My hardware can support it, and indeed if I could do that I could double the RAM in my machine, but I would not feel it would be worth it to add an extra layer of fuss when it comes to using my system the way I want to.

    So am I worrying about nothing or are there legitimate problems still with running older software?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Finally looks like Mono & friends will be dropped!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •