In the future...

[lakehousetech]

Do a search next time and you can join everyone else who is complaining about the lack of a 64 bit version.

[linuxviolin]

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'?

Everything supports it nowadays.

Nope, wrong.

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

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.

(...)

Myths revisited

"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...

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...

[belovedmonster]

I'm sure if you added up the number of computers in active use in the world today the vast majority of them are 32bit. My PC certainly is. That said, 64bit support for Mint is on its way so there's no need to get your knickers in a twist.

[exploder]

In the future it would be nice if we got a 64 bit release BEFORE the 32 bit. This is the 21st century...almost everyone uses 64 bit if they can.

My main machine is 64 bit and I still run a 32 bit OS.

[rivenought]

My main machine is 64-bit, as well, and I had previously preferred to run with the 32-bit version of Mint. However, with my hardware, the 64-bit version of Mint runs much better than the 32-bit version. So, from now on, looks like my machine wants 64-bit versions no matter what I may prefer. As long as the hardware is happy, I am happy. Ha, ha, ha.

Edited for typo.

[linuxviolin]

64 bit is the future .... its crazy to hang with old stuff like 32 bit even after x64
x64 is more advanced and give improved performance..

Maybe it's the future but for now like I said in my previous post, there are some problem with 64 bit yet. Flash is not perfect, codecs are not all compiled in 64 bit, the majority of the apps are still 32 bit (32-bit apps in compatibility mode under a 64-bit OS doesn't bring any real benefit) and you have more choice etc Really, yes maybe in the future, the near future maybe, but for now it's not absolutely necessary... and again like I and an AMD Developer said (previous post)

"64-bit software is twice as fast"

* Rarely the fact, software is usually optimized for 32-bit

And "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."

And if you have less of 4GB of RAM you should use 32 bit Mint, see the Mint quote in my previous post.

"it's crazy", maybe but it's sometimes/often the better solution for now.

[Fred]

wierdo124 wrote:

Are you retarded? Only people that are too dumb to poor piss out of a boot..64 bit is the future..what's to hate about 64 bit?

Personal attacks on this level are not necessary. Please be careful and think before you post. You might be slipping over the line here a bit.

Thanks,

Fred

[exploder]

wierdo124, Fred is right, please express your views without insulting other community members. You are entitled to express your views but do so in a calmer manner. Thanks!

exploder

[McLovin]

I have both 32, and 64 bit systems, my main desktop is 64 bit, my laptop, and server, are both 32 bit. Also, netbooks are 32 bit. 64 bit apps are still among the minority, things such as, adobe flash, still only 32 bit for windows, there is a 64 bit flash for linux, but still not for windows, or mac. also, alot of other programs still do not have 64 bit versions.I use a 64 bit mint, and it runs pretty good, but I also run ArchLinux, and i tried the 64 bit, and had nothing but trouble, so i am back to the 32 bit arch. so while 64 bit may be the future, it is just that, the future, not the present.

[lakehousetech]

This subject has been flogged to within an inch of it's life. I wish people would do some reading and understand exactly what 64 bit is before complaining about the availability. The only applications I've used at this point which take advantage of the 64 bit math are scientific modeling programs.

[tinca]

Ozz,

in reply to your question concerning what do we (I) need a 64 bit operating system for?.

In my case it is to do "Protein Folding". I built this computer just for that, although it does all of my other computing work as well.

Protein Folding is definitely faster on a 64 bit system than a 32 bit system, and that is the only reason for me using it.

I am running Mint Elyssa 5 with kernel 2.6.24-16-generic. I have tried the newer mint but it folded 25% slower. I have also tried other 64 bit systems, but Mint Elyssa with the 2.6.24 kernel is the fastest of all. You can find more information concerning this over at Stanford University folding forum.

I too think that this 32 bit versus 64 bit has gasped its last breath, but as usual with Linux, "it is your choice"

Best regards Keith

p.s. wierdo124,

please refrain from being so rude, as it is not called for.

[Aging Technogeek]

wierdo124,

I've got a 64 bit machine and when Mint 6 64 bit came out I tried it and returned to the 32 bit version. My experience is that, side by side, except for applications that require massive memory usage or a great deal of computational power, there is not enough improvement in performance with 64 bit Mint to justify accepting the admitted slight reduction in stability. I may be a reactionary old fogy by your standards but my experience is that rushing to apply the newest technology just because its new can (and often does) lead to frequent system crashes and reinstalls.

[lakehousetech]

I have noticed a stall in the progress of computers and applications as well. On the Windows side, people are hanging on to XP, games have not evolved much. The trend is almost on a reverse curve, with the advent of the netbooks, which are low specs machines (And how I love them!!!!)

We are not progressing as fast as we used to in terms of processor speeds etc. The answer: the dual core, the quadri core, and the upcoming SEXYcore, or Octuple Core etc... It sounds like an advertisement for razor blades (I personally reverted to the old one blade razors by the way works fine for me, the four blades ones are a rip off.)

So what is it that you want to run on your 64 Bit system? Firefox? Skype? a database? A real time airport system?

But I do see your point, that if no one pushes these technologies forward, it will not happen. So go, you young pioneer! Go and make 64 Bit a reality for us. Then the rest of us can run Skype in 64 Bit.

It's just a matter of time. In reality 16 bit applications were supported for quite some time after the 32 bit operating systems began popping up. 64 bit applications will gradually come around as well in more mainstream avenues (like gaming and 3D CAD). For the everyday user's applications, the need for twice the register space is unnecessary. I think that in tandem with the latest power house GPU's we could really see some sick visuals. I would like to see more games written for 64 bit over the next year or two.

[AK Dave]

Head to head, based on what I do with my own computers, a 64bit desktop OS doesn't offer much over 32bit. There are a couple weak checks in the plus column, and several checks in the minus column.

With 64bit Jaunty I do see slightly faster encrypt/decrypt of secure data, as well as slightly faster video transcoding. Thus my encrypted external drive is a little faster to use, an encrypted /home is a better option, and DVDs are a little faster to rip. But its all so marginal as to not be worth it. The biggest check in the minus column is that 3D video with the ATI Xpress card in my laptop is slower, much slower, with 64bit drivers than with 32bit. This is particularly noted in games, but not noticed at all with compiz. The hardware is capable of 64bit, but isn't optimized for 64bit. The apps are compiled as 64bit, but with rare exceptions the code just isn't optimized for 64bit. There is little performance advantage, what advantage there is is marginal at best, and even optimized code wants a lot more silicon.

What does run exceptionally well in 64bit is KDE4.2. If you restrict yourself 100% to KDE4 apps.

My current server runs 32bit BSD because I don't have the need on it for anything that 64bit offers. If I rebuilt the server with all new hardware and dumped a ton of ram into the server, I'd probably rebuild the arrays with ZFS and RAIDZ. And maybe even encrypt them. Whereas right now my arrays are simple RAID1 pairs, unencrypted. Heavier iron allows different options, which could leverage a little better performance and a lot better efficiency (I'd gain ~50% additional storage space out of the same number of drives with a RAIDZ/RAID5 array instead of having pairs of RAID1 twins).

[Eddie G. Wilson]

Good Day All,

I also am looking forward to the 64 bit version of Mint 7. I do some video work and also quite a bit of audio work. I couldn't get the processing power I needed with 32 bit.(I have tried with Mint) Also I did not find the 64 bit version of Ubuntu 9.04 to be any less stable than the 32 bit version. I would rather run Mint but at this time I need the extra power. When the 64 bit version is released I will install it. There is no good reason 64 bit should be any less stable than 32 bit.

@ everyone, wierdo124 was out of line with his rude comment that was made out of retaliation but lakehousetech threw the first stone with his first rude unedited post. Furthermore this is the mint64 section is it not? Wierdo124's first comment was just a simple statement and did not deserve the answer he got. People who think that this subject doesn't need to be talked about, or that it has been beat to death, and are tired of hearing about 64 bit versions don't really need to be in this section.

Have a Nice Day,
Eddie

[FedoraRefugee]

Good Day All,

I also am looking forward to the 64 bit version of Mint 7. I do some video work and also quite a bit of audio work. I couldn't get the processing power I needed with 32 bit.(I have tried with Mint) Also I did not find the 64 bit version of Ubuntu 9.04 to be any less stable than the 32 bit version. I would rather run Mint but at this time I need the extra power. When the 64 bit version is released I will install it. There is no good reason 64 bit should be any less stable than 32 bit.

@ everyone, wierdo124 was out of line with his rude comment that was made out of retaliation but lakehousetech threw the first stone with his first rude unedited post. Furthermore this is the mint64 section is it not? Wierdo124's first comment was just a simple statement and did not deserve the answer he got. People who think that this subject doesn't need to be talked about, or that it has been beat to death, and are tired of hearing about 64 bit versions don't really need to be in this section.

Have a Nice Day,
Eddie

Good point, which is why I did not comment. But I always thought one "poured" bodily waste fluids out of boots, not "poor" them.

Word to the wise, when one uses terms like "retarded," "dumb," or "stupid" in reference to others they should triple check their grammar and spelling!!!

[Eddie G. Wilson]

Good Day All,

I also am looking forward to the 64 bit version of Mint 7. I do some video work and also quite a bit of audio work. I couldn't get the processing power I needed with 32 bit.(I have tried with Mint) Also I did not find the 64 bit version of Ubuntu 9.04 to be any less stable than the 32 bit version. I would rather run Mint but at this time I need the extra power. When the 64 bit version is released I will install it. There is no good reason 64 bit should be any less stable than 32 bit.

@ everyone, wierdo124 was out of line with his rude comment that was made out of retaliation but lakehousetech threw the first stone with his first rude unedited post. Furthermore this is the mint64 section is it not? Wierdo124's first comment was just a simple statement and did not deserve the answer he got. People who think that this subject doesn't need to be talked about, or that it has been beat to death, and are tired of hearing about 64 bit versions don't really need to be in this section.

Have a Nice Day,
Eddie

Good point, which is why I did not comment. But I always thought one "poured" bodily waste fluids out of boots, not "poor" them.

Word to the wise, when one uses terms like "retarded," "dumb," or "stupid" in reference to others they should triple check their grammar and spelling!!!

LMAO You got it right!

[lakehousetech]

Good Day All,

I do some video work and also quite a bit of audio work. I couldn't get the processing power I needed with 32 bit.(I have tried with Mint) Also I did not find the 64 bit version of Ubuntu 9.04 to be any less stable than the 32 bit version. I would rather run Mint but at this time I need the extra power. When the 64 bit version is released I will install it. There is no good reason 64 bit should be any less stable than 32 bit.

@ everyone, wierdo124 was out of line with his rude comment that was made out of retaliation but lakehousetech threw the first stone with his first rude unedited post. Furthermore this is the mint64 section is it not? Wierdo124's first comment was just a simple statement and did not deserve the answer he got. People who think that this subject doesn't need to be talked about, or that it has been beat to death, and are tired of hearing about 64 bit versions don't really need to be in this section.

Have a Nice Day,
Eddie

Are your video and audio applications 64 bit? OS won't make a difference in performance if your applications don't support the register size. Did you read this entire thread?

[Eddie G. Wilson]

Yes they are and yes I did from the very beginning. Why do you ask? If I couldn't use 64 bit apps then I couldn't get the performance I need out of Linux and I would have to go another route. I'm not going to argue about what software I need to get done what I need to do. That's not up for debate. Maybe this is what I should do; Use LinuxMint 7 32 bit for play time and use Ubuntu Studio for my serious work. I could use a real time kernel also along with the 64 bit apps. and come to think of it I don't believe I could get a real time kernel even with the the 64 bit version of LinuxMint 7 so I guess my choice is limited.

[FedoraRefugee]

As Mint is just Ubuntu anyway that sounds like a great plan! Why not use a distro that has done all the work for you for your needs?