Any reason to stick with 32-bit?

[rybnik]

I'll start off by saying that yes, I've searched this forum (and the ubuntu forum), but I'm looking for information that is up-to-date, which the threads I found about this topic weren't.

I'm still running a 32-bit OS, sticking with it mainly to be assured of compatibility. But is that still a legitimate concern? What I read is that adobe flash didn't work so well in a 64-bit OS or it required a messy work-around. As with skype, which supposedly required/requires a messy workaround to work in 64-bit. Is that still the case? Are there any reasons to still use 32-bit?

Replies are appreciated.

[oshunluvr]

Since the introduction of 12.10, (K)Ubuntu has gone to a "multi-arch" system system - which means "multiple architectures." The net result is when you need 32 bit libraries to run a program, they are installed pretty much automatically. I can state I have installed Skype, Wine and a couple other 32 bit programs on my 64 bit Kubuntu install and no "messy work-arounds" were required (although installing lib32a didn't seem very messy to me, but whatever) and they all work fine.

IMO, the bigger factor to the question of 64 vs. 32 bit is memory. If you have less than 2GB an argument can be made for 32 bit depending on your personal work-flow. Generally, 2GB or more 64 is the way to go.

This is, of course, an opinion and no doubt you're about to read a few more...

[rybnik]

I borrowed the phrase "messy work-around" from a fedora textbook, the author of which mentioned the skype case, but I think he was referring to installing 64-bit (sic) skype on a machine running a 64-bit (sic) OS. I wasn't even aware that it was possible to install 32-bit programs on a 64-bit system.

Can a computer allocate a total of more than 4 gigs of ram to a group of 32-bit programs running on a 64-bit OS? Or do (all) your programs have to be 64-bit to take advantage of using more than 4 gigs of ram?

[HalationEffect]

but I think he was referring to installing 64-bit (sic) skype

He can't have been, as there is no 64-bit version of Skype for Linux.

[oshunluvr]

I believe a 32 bit program can access 3GB of memory space (the kernel holding 1GB for itself). My best guess is this is a program, or more properly process, limitation not an overall limitation. Thus, each 32 bit process would be able to address 3GB each. I could be totally wrong as this is way outside my area of knowledge.

On the other hand, just exactly how many 32 bit processes are you planning on running at once? Is this really a limitation of some sort for you? Either way, you'll not be in worse shape memory wise using 64 bit kernels unless - as I said - you have less than 2GB of RAM. There's no other reason that I can think of to stay with a 32 bit kernel (except a 32 bit processor of course).

[rybnik]

He can't have been, as there is no 64-bit version of Skype for Linux.

Ah.

On the other hand, just exactly how many 32 bit processes are you planning on running at once? Is this really a limitation of some sort for you?

just theoretical curiosity

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks.

[mummel]

If you have a 64 bit computer use it, with 64 bit OS