basic questions about Ubuntu install

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
My chip is an Intel Core 2 Duo T6500, 2.1GHz800Mhz, 2M L2 Cache
That is a 64 bit chip, correct?
So, should I use the 64 bit version of Ubuntu?
Oddly, the 64 bit version has the file name, "ubuntu-9.04-desktop-amd64.iso," making me think it is for AMD chips? Yes? No?



I have 320Gs of HD space - I suppose half to Windows and half to Linux would be reasonable. But, within Linux, I have to specify all the sizes for the root, the home, the swap, etc... Which one of those holds all the space for downloads? Home?
 
Nothinman

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Even Intel 64-bit consumer chips are AMD64 since they licensed it from AMD. Although a lot of places call it x86-64 or worse x64 now.

Technically all you need is / (root) and swap, but if you want to separate out /home for easier reinstallation, transitions, etc feel free. Technically downloads go wherever you want, but by default all of your data will be somewhere below /home/username.
 
VinDSL

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: glen
[...] So, should I use the 64 bit version of Ubuntu? [...]

I have 320Gs of HD space - I suppose half to Windows and half to Linux would be reasonable. But, within Linux, I have to specify all the sizes for the root, the home, the swap, etc... Which one of those holds all the space for downloads? Home?
Click to expand...
First things first...

I've run Ubuntu and Mint (an Ubuntu fork) in both x86 and x86_x64 configurations - and 64 bit is a PITA.

64 bit is fine until you try to watch a video, or play flash games... then you'll be uber sorry you installed the 64 bit version, guaranteed!

Bottom line: They're working on the flash problems, but it ain't there yet! Stick with 32 bit (if you're a typical user)...


On partitioning, I multi-boot this Toshiba lappy. It has a 320GB TravelStar HD.

http://www.vindsl.com/images/toshy_partitions.png (VinDSL.com - Toshiba Partition Screenie)

I'm currently multi-booting Vista / Mint 7 / openSolaris in 3 (more or less equal) 100GB partitions.

Personally, I like to keep my system files separate from my downloads, music, videos, documents, et cetera.

In the screenie, you can see I devoted 10GB to / (root) and 86GB to /home.

You'll also see a bogus 4GB partition (falsely mounted as a media disk). Normally, this is my linux-swap partition, but I haven't figured out a way to keep Solaris from taking it over and converting it into a F^%$# Amoeba partition. :|

Anyway, that's what I do...

Have fun! :D
 
Nothinman

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
64 bit is fine until you try to watch a video, or play flash games... then you'll be uber sorry you installed the 64 bit version, guaranteed!

Bottom line: They're working on the flash problems, but it ain't there yet! Stick with 32 bit (if you're a typical user)...
Click to expand...

I can't remember the last time I had a problem watching a video with mplayer or flash anything.
 
Nothinman

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Watch the featured video in HD (the whole thing) . Does it work for you - no lag, flickering, et cetera?
Click to expand...

Maybe when I get home. However, those things are completely separate from the 32-bit/64-bit thing. Both flash builds are equally problematic.
 
Nothinman

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Watch the featured video in HD (the whole thing) . Does it work for you - no lag, flickering, et cetera?
Click to expand...

Despite my better judgement I did watch the whole video and it played back just fine. It skipped a handful of times but that's just flash in general and has nothing to do with the fact that I'm using the 64-bit plugin, overall I'd say it played 99% perfectly. There were some buffering issues but the same thing happened when I downloaded it with youtube-dl so it wasn't flash's fault.
 
VinDSL

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Watch the featured video in HD (the whole thing) . Does it work for you - no lag, flickering, et cetera?
Click to expand...
Despite my better judgement I did watch the whole video...
Click to expand...
Not into Glam Music, eh? Sorry!

Mpho Skeef is hot though... isn't she? :D
 
Sylvanas

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
There is no reason be using 32bit anything these days. Last I checked theres a Flash 10.1 alpha 64bit plugin that works fine, but I have never had problems watching videos on Ubuntu 9.04 64.
 
VinDSL

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
One of the major problems I have is (video foibles aside)...

My Brute (an online Flash game with no rules) crashes Firefox in 64-bit config - Ubuntu & Mint. I tried everything... including different browsers.

Seems like a silly reason to give up on it, but then again, there is really no benefit to running a x86_x64 OS anyway, unless you enjoy instability.

That said, OpenSolaris on x86_64 (same browser, same flash, same machine) handles My Brute with no problem, sooo...
 
Sylvanas

Sylvanas

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2004
3,752
0
0
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Originally posted by: Sylvanas

[...] I have never had problems watching videos on Ubuntu 9.04 64.
Click to expand...
Heh!

Go give this puppy a whirl...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5XAEl9dd_s (VinDSL's Channel - The Dog Problem Opening Titles)

No cheating! Click the [HD] button... :D
Click to expand...

Nice video but whats the deal? That video played with no issues in HD and I'm typing from my Dell laptop on ubuntu 9.04 64bit.

but then again, there is really no benefit to running a x86_x64 OS anyway, unless you enjoy instability.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Have a look at this article that compares the two and you can see 64bit is faster in nearly all cases especially in memory and processing intensive tasks like encoding and compression- and so it should, these processes take advantage of 64bit architecture.
 
Nothinman

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Just think of her as a female Obama...
Click to expand...

Yea, definitely not helping...

Nice video but whats the deal? That video played with no issues in HD and I'm typing from my Dell laptop on ubuntu 9.04 64bit.
Click to expand...

For some reason he thinks the 64-bit Flash plugin is worse than the 32-bit one, which would be a feat in itself.
 
Nothinman

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Thanks! That article proves my point(s). It's a matter of reading comprehension!
Click to expand...

How? I only skimmed the article but all of the numbers are in favor of the 64-bit release except for the flash benchmark and the difference is so minimal that it would probably fall into the statistical noise category. Your main point was that 64-bit is a PITA compared to 32-bit and that flash is terrible yet the article addresses neither of those points.
 
VinDSL

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Nice video but whats the deal? That video played with no issues in HD and I'm typing from my Dell laptop on ubuntu 9.04 64bit.
Click to expand...

For some reason he thinks the 64-bit Flash plugin is worse than the 32-bit one, which would be a feat in itself.
Click to expand...
LoL! Guess you didn't bother to read the article either... :D

Most Linux users run a 32-bit distro, and many of them run a 32-bit distro on a 64-bit computer. The question is, why?
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, boot time doesn't really vary depending on your CPU compilation - the tiny difference is small enough to be safely ignore.
Click to expand...

bzip2 is a very common compression format on Linux, but 64-bit makes only a small dent in the extraction speed.
Click to expand...

Compiling a super-sized Linux kernel took over an hour in 32-bit mode (64 minutes, to be precise), but 59 minutes in 64-bit, knocking five minutes off the time - a nice bonus, but nothing to shout about.
Click to expand...

Converting from WAV to Ogg is one area that has clearly been optimised for 64-bit processors, running at almost twice the speed.
Click to expand...
Whoopie do! Convert a lot of WAV files to Ogg, do we?

And, now to my original point...

Adobe produces only a 32-bit version of Flash that must be run through a Linux compatibility layer [true]. That layer is flawless in terms of stability [bullshit], but it does slow things down a bit as can be seen [true].
Click to expand...

Then there's Adobe Flash. Not only is it pretty much ubiquitous on the web, but it's also completely closed-source - Gnash, the free software project that aims to replace Flash, is such a long way away that it just isn't an option for everyday users. Adobe has said that it intends to release 64-bit Flash for Flash 11, so until then you must either install the 32-bit build and suffer slightly degraded performance or go for the 64-bit alpha build and handle updating it yourself.

Although we certainly wouldn't recommend average users to use that 64-bit alpha [blah, blah, blah]
Click to expand...

Is it worth it?

Putting aside the issue of Flash for a moment, moving from 32-bit to 64-bit is pretty much painless [...]
Click to expand...

Hello?!?!?

I don't want to put "the issue of Flash" aside!

That's my whole point and your article proves it! ;)
 
Gooberlx2

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Originally posted by: VinDSL
Bottom line: They're working on the flash problems, but it ain't there yet! Stick with 32 bit (if you're a typical user)...
Click to expand...

Why not just install the 32-bit libraries in place of the 64-bit stuff when needed? I guess I'm not sure how *buntu does, but I have x64 opensuse, running x64 firefox, using x32 flash plugin/library.

Works fine. Would that nor work in *buntu, or just be a huge PITA to maintain?
 
Nothinman

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Why not just install the 32-bit libraries in place of the 64-bit stuff when needed? I guess I'm not sure how *buntu does, but I have x64 opensuse, running x64 firefox, using x32 flash plugin/library.
Click to expand...

That's probably nspluginwrapper, but with a 64-bit flash plugin now I don't know why you'd do that.
 
VinDSL

VinDSL

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,869
1
81
www.lenon.com
Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
Why not just install the 32-bit libraries in place of the 64-bit stuff when needed?
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not spelling it out enough for you guys...

I'm not a gamer, but I really enjoy My Brute - it has a cult following, and I'm one of the Kool-Aid drinkers.

I have 2 Clans - 1 of them is rated at approx #250 (out of 116,000 Clans)...

http://mybrute.com/team/32693

I maintain 66 dojos (brutes) and play them daily - takes about an hour using a GreaseMonkey script.

WHEN I PLAY MY BRUTE ON A X86_X64 LINUX MACHINE FLASH CRASHES FIREFOX!!!

Other than that, and some occasional wonkyness watching Flash videos, x86_x64 is fine (enough).

As soon as Adobe fixes the problem, I'll go back to 64-bit in Linux!

Make more sense now? ;)
 
Gooberlx2

Gooberlx2

Lifer
May 4, 2001
15,381
6
91
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Why not just install the 32-bit libraries in place of the 64-bit stuff when needed? I guess I'm not sure how *buntu does, but I have x64 opensuse, running x64 firefox, using x32 flash plugin/library.
Click to expand...

That's probably nspluginwrapper, but with a 64-bit flash plugin now I don't know why you'd do that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, looking at about: plugins, looks like it's wrapped. I don't care much about it either way. It works fine for me. When x64 flash is added to the official opensuse repos, I'll install it.

Like I said in another post somewhere, I'm not a fan of using certain 3rd party repos (packman) because it seems to introduce too much probability in breaking things. *shrug*

WHEN I PLAY MY BRUTE ON A X86_X64 LINUX MACHINE FLASH CRASHES FIREFOX!!!
Click to expand...
So even the wrapped x32 flash is crashing Firefox? Gotcha. I misunderstood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom