Is there any other reason besides ram limitations to pick 64bit over 32?

[fatpat268]

I'm about to reinstall the latest ubuntu from scratch, and I previously had Ubuntu 8.10 64bit on my laptop. I had various problems with some programs that I needed, but they didn't support 64-bit. Some I was able to work around but some others, not so much.

Now, I only have 3gb ram in my laptop and I don't plan on adding any more, so is there any other benefit to the 64-bit version or should I stick with 32 for now?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Get the 32bit version.

 

[Nothinman]

Not really, but what programs gave you problems? I've had a pure 64-bit machine for years now and have no problems.

 

[fatpat268]

Well the main thing was the Java broswer client. Icedtea worked fine for the most part, but it doesn't work with my bank and my college's network authentication.

That was the main thing. Many 32 bit apps in the past created 64 bit apps now, so it isn't that much of a problem. I'm just thinking that if the 64bit version gives me no other benefit than increased ram capacity, then there's no use for me to run it. Maybe it does offer some other benefits, but I don't know of them.

 

[SickBeast]

The 32 bit version will have a smaller memory footprint and better overall compatibility.

The 64 bit version will perform faster at certain tasks. Overall, they will perform about the same, but from what I've seen the 64 bit version is 5-10% faster generally speaking.

It'll probably be a couple more years before 64 bit becomes the norm unfortunately.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The 32 bit version will have a smaller memory footprint and better overall compatibility.

The 64 bit version will perform faster at certain tasks. Overall, they will perform about the same, but from what I've seen the 64 bit version is 5-10% faster generally speaking.

It'll probably be a couple more years before 64 bit becomes the norm unfortunately.

Thanks, that's what I was wondering.

I don't do anything intensive with my laptop where I could see a speed boost benefit, so I'll stick with 32 bit for now.

 

[SickBeast]

You're welcome. :thumbsup:

 

[Nothinman]

There's also the internal Linux implementation of high memory, 3G isn't large by todays standards but a 32-bit kernel will still have to deal with low and high memory and there are instances where that can cause problems because you run out of low memory. Whether you'll see them or not in your usage is hard to tell but a 64-bit kernel avoids those issues.

You could also install a 32-bit system and a 64-bit kernel, that's what I have at work with Debian. I dunno if Ubuntu packages 64-bit kernels for their 32-bit distro like Debian does though.

 

[swanysto]

I was under the impression that 64bit OS's have no problem backtracking to execute 32bit programs. The only problems I have ever run into were driver problems.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: swanysto
I was under the impression that 64bit OS's have no problem backtracking to execute 32bit programs. The only problems I have ever run into were driver problems.

Typically that's the case. However not all 32-bit programs and/or their dependencies are packaged for the 64-bit version (of Ubuntu). Boxee is one popular program that sticks out in my mind. It's a bit of a PITA to employ some workarounds to get it installed.

 

[Nothinman]

I was under the impression that 64bit OS's have no problem backtracking to execute 32bit programs. The only problems I have ever run into were driver problem

The problem is that you still need all of the 32-bit libraries too, 32-bit binaries can't use 64-bit libraries or vice versa and most distributions don't make installing 32-bit libraries on a 64-bit distro as seamless as it could be. It's being worked on but since most Linux devs stick to OSS software and most OSS software compiles and runs fine at 64-bit there's not a lot of motivation.