Kubuntu 32bit vs 64bit

[vw72]

For the longest time, I have stuck with Kubuntu 32bit because I don't have excessive amounts of RAM and I have always heard there is better developer support (ie more apps available) for 32bit versus 64bit.

Recently, I saw where there are more debian downloads for 64bit than 32bit and since I had an empty partition decided to install Kubuntu 64bit on it to see how it fared. For the most part, it seemed to perform about the same as the 32bit version, although some plasma widgets weren't available. In terms of application support, the only thing I have found so far is that Skype wants to install a bunch of 32bit kde libs, but it still works fine, too.

I was just curious as to what other's experience with 64bit versus 32bit has been or any obstacles or problems?

[capt-zero]

I've tried several times to install a 64bit version. Never have been able to get a clean copy. Did md5 sums and everything.

[claydoh]

Been using 64 bit for years now, with zero issues most of the time, mostly in the beginning with non free video drivers. There is no reason not to go 64 bit, but there is also not necessarily any reason to wipe a stable system just to get 64 bit.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

[GreyGeek]

I agree with Claydoh, for the most part.

IF I have a computer with dual or higher cores, 1.6GHz, and 3 GB or higher of RAM I'd go with the 64bit. Several apps are still only 32bit, like Skype, so they will bring along the 32bit farm when they install, but after that they work seamlessly. When I tried my old Sony VAIO VFN-141E notebook (dual core, 1.8GHz, 6GB) I noticed an increase in performance of, at the most, 15% with 64bit apps over their 32bit counterparts.

I choose to go with 64bit because I am a speed freak. A cheap speed freak ... I won't waste money on a high end graphic chip.

[SecretCode]

64 bit all the way. Flash was a bit of a pain years ago; no other problems.

[whatthefunk]

I changed to 64 bit when 12.04 was released. No problems at all.

[vw72]

I've installed 64bit 12.04 on the extra partition and I haven't had any problems, either. I was just making plans for when 12.10 is released as to whether I wanted to go 64 bit or not, and since I only had limited experience with it, I wanted to make sure there weren't any gotchas! It appears there is not.

Thanks everyone for your input.

[blackpaw]

Glad to see it worked out.

For a long while flash was the big stocking point for 64 bit, but that seems to be resolved now. OTOH not a lot of point if you have less than 4 GB of ram. But no real harm either.

[addegsson]

I've used 64-bits for years and never had any issues.

[oshunluvr]

I've used 64-bits for years and never had any issues.

+1

Only thing here I would disagree with is the "no reason if you don't have the RAM" comments. If you're doing anything CPU intensive 64 bit will fair better. My personal experience is with DVD transcoding - my time for a full length movie rip and transcode is about a 30-40% decrease using 64 bit.

[Jonas]

Glad to see it worked out.

For a long while flash was the big stocking point for 64 bit, but that seems to be resolved now. OTOH not a lot of point if you have less than 4 GB of ram. But no real harm either.

Several years ago I had a 64 bit CPU and thought that 64 bit was the way to go. I later realized that the occasional stuttering processes I was having was due to the fact that I only had 2 Gb of RAM. Once I got the 32 bit it was behaving as supposed to.

Oh and the utter hell of 64 bit flash ... imho, I'll consider flash to be "fixed" once it's gone from everywhere except photography

*I may be wrong here* I read somewhere that Linux have comparably more 64 bit applications then Windows/OSX plattforms, could this be?

b.r

Jonas

[blackpaw]

Several years ago I had a 64 bit CPU and thought that 64 bit was the way to go. I later realized that the occasional stuttering processes I was having was due to the fact that I only had 2 Gb of RAM. Once I got the 32 bit it was behaving as supposed to.

Oh and the utter hell of 64 bit flash ... imho, I'll consider flash to be "fixed" once it's gone from everywhere except photography

No argument from me, flaky as hell, even on windows.

*I may be wrong here* I read somewhere that Linux have comparably more 64 bit applications then Windows/OSX plattforms, could this be?

I would think so. My work is mainly windows and most people still distribute 32 bit apps only. Reason being is that they are binaries rather than open source and its just easier to target 32 bit which is both platforms rather than do separate 32 and 64 bit binaries.

[Euroman]

I changed to 64 bit when 12.04 was released. No problems at all.

Same here. Only problem I have come across are 32-bit (i386) executable files that did not work out of the box, had to install ia32-libs to run them.

[vw72]

I have now run into my first problem: Wine. While Wine installs and works, I am having difficulty installing some programs under it that install fine under Gnome with Wine. The Gnome install, on a different partition, is 32bit, whereas the KDE install is 64bit. So at this point, I don't know if it is a kde issue or a 64/32 bit issue.

[Jimmy.P]

I have been using 64bit ever since windows xp64 came out and never used 32 bit after that. I have had no problem ever exept for the flash long time ago when you had to have a 32bit Firefox browser to use it.