Why is the 32 bit version recommended?

[jwebster8]

May not be the right place to ask, but here it is anyway.

Currently when I go to download kubuntu, it lists the 32 bit version as "recommended" ( http://www.kubuntu.org/getkubuntu/do...download-block )

I currently use Matlab at work, and the mathworks website says that their 32 bit version or matlab will no longer be available after version 2012a
( http://www.mathworks.com/downloads/w...e_and_platform )

If there are significant enough problems with the 64 bit version of kubuntu to warrant the 32 bit recommendation, what are they? And what is the ETA of the problems being fixed?

I know I tried the 64 bit version a few years ago and had issues, but it's been a while and I was hoping they'd been fixed. I now have a shiny new computer with 64 bit architecture and I'd like to take advantage of it if possible.

Thanks for your time

[SecretCode]

I think it's just this: the 32 bit OS will install on all computers. The 64 bit OS will only install on 64-bit capable CPUs. So ... making the 32 bit build "recommended" means fewer dumb complaints.

(Plus it's not that long since there were drawbacks with 64 bit, like Flash. I don't think there are any reasons to avoid it now.)

[jwebster8]

thanks, that's a reasonable answer.

If nobody else has had a problem, I'll try it this week. If I have problems, I'll let you know.

[GreyGeek]

I defaulted to the 64bit ISO when a purchased my first dual core computer in August of 2008. In February of 2009 I installed Kubuntu (and joined this forum!). There didn't seem to be many 64 bit apps and the 32bit compatibility libraries were required. I switched from Jaunty to Lucid in Feb of 2010. By then I noticed that more apps were 64bit. On my new Acer 7739 I installed Precise Alpha and never noticed that the 32 bit libraries were not installed with the ISO. I only found out they weren't when I compiled Xephem, an astronomy program that is 32 bit. After I installed the 32 bit libraries the Xephem compile completed without complaints and runs nicely.

When I run jar files I include the "-d64" switch in order to take advantage of my i3 CPU.

All-in-all, I have noticed about a 15% over all increase in performance with the 64bit OS. I really notice it in the HD3000 Intel video graphic, which gives me a consistent 30 fps when compared to the 15-20 fps when running the 32 bit OS.

Of course, YMMV...

[oshunluvr]

I've been 64 bit since 08 also. I immediately noticed a 40-70% reduction in time to encode dvd's. I still occasionally run a 32 bit game (Loki RR Tycoon) without issues.

[Jonas]

What above said and my own experience. I had a 64 bit CPU before and "only" 2 GB of ram which gave me some choppiness with the x86_64 build (poorly chosen hardware really). The CPU went up to 100% every ~10 sec or so, in DE and especially noticeable in game(s) very annoying when I played Civ IV. Changing to the 386 build made CPU load much more stable. I can't really answer what made this behavior, someone else probably can though. Just thought I share it, as others may encounter this performance trouble.

[lo_koraco]

What above said and my own experience. I had a 64 bit CPU before and "only" 2 GB of ram which gave me some choppiness with the x86_64 build (poorly chosen hardware really). The CPU went up to 100% every ~10 sec or so, in DE and especially noticeable in game(s) very annoying when I played Civ IV. Changing to the 386 build made CPU load much more stable. I can't really answer what made this behavior, someone else probably can though. Just thought I share it, as others may encounter this performance trouble.

I also have 2GB of ram, and amd64 distros run much cleaner, and tax the CPU much less. Also, all the sound drivers work infinitely better. The RAM is taxed slightly more, but not by much. I think the major problem is with Debian's rather slow introduction of multiarch, which is only now beginning to work with no major problems in Wheezy.

[perspectoff]

Part of it has to do with the ARM architecture, since mobile devices are part of the target market for Ubuntu.

Further, a lot of Mozilla plugins have been 32-bit only (such as the Lightning calendar plugin for Thunderbird) and I believe Ubuntu has gone to Thunderbird as a default email client. Lastly, Skype was until recently was only 32-bit.

I don't think the problem was ever with the OS, just with the target apps for the distro. I haven't had problems with any 64-bit version of (K)Ubuntu for many, many years. Having said that, my 32-bit programs always worked with ia32libs (and a "forced" installation of the 32-bit app) with the limited exception of independent Mozilla plugins (unless a 32-bit version of the Mozilla app was installed at the outset).

Remember, Ubuntu's current target is the widest range of users, especially mobile users.

[SecretCode]

Part of it has to do with the ARM architecture, since mobile devices are part of the target market for Ubuntu.

ARM architecture? Yes, there are (unsupported) builds for ARM ... but does that have anything to do with the 32 bit / 64 bit decision? Afaik ARM doesn't even have 64 bit chips in production yet.

You weren't thinking perhaps of the AMD architecture?