wierdo124 wrote:Are you retarded? Only people that are too dumb to poor piss out of a boot..64 bit is the future..
Maybe but why be so 'agressive'?
wierdo124 wrote:Everything supports it nowadays.
And if you like to play with 32 libs on 64 bit, or with skype or java for example on 64 bit... OK as you want! But many people, even "advanced" people, after have tried 64 bit, are returned to 32 bit for now... really there are often much less problems... We'll see "in the future", as you say
wierdo124 wrote:This is the 21st century...almost everyone uses 64 bit if they can.
Not at all!
Maybe yes it's the future, unfortunately (haha provocative, isn't it?
), but for now I stay with 32 bit (even if I have an amd64) and I'm not alone, see just above.
And there is not so big difference between 32 bit on a 64 bit processor and 64 bit... e.g. see at http://www.linuxmint.com/rel_elyssa_x64.php
MD5 was surprisingly faster under Main than under x64. Most other tests showed similar results (...) As software editors start to take advantage of this architecture and computer users acquire more RAM we'll see performance under amd64 raise further and outperform 32bit architectures like i386. This is not the case yet, or if it is it's not that noticeable at the moment
And there are other tests on the web, and about even results... there are few differences and not so big but often more stability, compatibility, codecs... with 32bit, for now. Software is usually optimized for 32-bit.
And also from the Official User Guide Linux Mint 6 “Felicia”
If you have less than 4GB of RAM, even if your processor is 64bit, you should choose the Main Edition. There is no tangible performance gain on computers with less than 4GB of RAM between the Main and the x64 Edition and the Main Edition is known to be more stable (X86_64 is quite new and most software actually runs faster and better in a 32bit environment, no matter whether the CPU actually supports 64bit or not).
"Now I can have 1.5 TB disk storage for a very, very good price, a quad-core CPU, a hugely powerful video card (useless to me)... but a 32-bit OS, because most applications were NOT ported to 64-bit, and running 32-bit apps in compatibility mode under a 64-bit OS doesn't bring any real benefit."
And don't forget:
Downsides of 64-bit
A 64-bit execution environment and 64-bit software surely have their downsides, too. First there is the larger memory footprint. Binaries get larger because of an increased pointer size and 64-bit operands. This leads to higher memory transfer load and therefore increases cache utilization.
"64-bit software is twice as fast"
* Rarely the fact, software is usually optimized for 32-bit
(From a post on AMD Developer Blogs, march 2008.)
And for people with more 4 GB of RAM, there are the bigmem kernels. I don't know if they exist for Ubuntu but e.g. Parsix has them. They permit you to use 32 bits version and yet to do full use of your +4 GB of RAM... "if you use 32bt the bigmem kernel just needs installing if you have lots of ram." "This will allow users to have the best of both worlds and allow more flexibility with the 32bit version of Parsix." "bigmem kernel is for system with higher than 4 gb of ram and when you want to run 32 bit OS on it." But maybe they are "special things" for Parsix...
wierdo124 wrote:In the future it would be nice if we got a 64 bit release BEFORE the 32 bit.
In the future, maybe, but NOT now.
P. S.= Don't misunderstand me, this post is not against 64 bit...
K.I.S.S. ===> "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." (Leonardo da Vinci)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Albert Einstein)