What are the pros and cons of Mint64?

[Gara3987]

I have been looking through the Internet, and was wondering what the Pros and cons of the Linux 64-bit Operating Systems are. I have noticed that the 32-bit versions have support for the multi-core processors such as the AMD-64 AthlonX2 and the Core2/i3,5,7.

When I typed "uname -a" into the terminal, it indicated that Linux Mint 9 has symmetric multiprocessing, and finds both cores when I input "grep processor /proc/cpuinfo." So I am wondering what am I missing exactly? Thanks in advance.

[SeanBest]

64 bit OS utilize 64 bit processors where as 32 bit OS will only use 32 bits of it. 64 bit OS will also allow the usage for more than 3GB of RAM. Honestly 64 bit was iffy at best a few years ago with lack of driver and software support, but today, if you have a 64 bit processor, there really is no point in sticking to a 32 bit OS.

[tdockery97]

With possibly one exception. Flash support for 64 bit is still iffy. Does not play well with some sites, such as Hulu. I tried 64 bit and changed back to the 32 bit version of Isadora.

[SeanBest]

Flash in Mint 9 x64 working great for me in Firefox and Chrome, haven't had trouble with any sites yet.

[vincent]

Flash in Mint 9 x64 working great for me in Firefox and Chrome, haven't had trouble with any sites yet.

Same here, Flash x64 works just dandy on my laptop. With things like Flash though, often nothing more can be said than "your mileage may vary".

[randomizer]

You can always run the 32-bit Flash on a 64-bit installation. It just means you need the 32-bit libs.

[Gara3987]

64 bit OS utilize 64 bit processors where as 32 bit OS will only use 32 bits of it. 64 bit OS will also allow the usage for more than 3GB of RAM. Honestly 64 bit was iffy at best a few years ago with lack of driver and software support, but today, if you have a 64 bit processor, there really is no point in sticking to a 32 bit OS.

As I was doing research I came across Linux Forums: Linux 64 vs 32 and have come to realize that the 32 bit kernel can recompiled to handle up to 64 GB of RAM.

I have tried Linux Mint 64, but not for long, I was trying to get my PCI RaLink RT2760 Wireless 802.11n 1T/2R Cardbus to run. It is detected out of the box and finds access points but wont connect until I use ndiswrapper to install the Windows Driver, after that is done, the wireless completely disappears. I can't even enable it again, when right clicking on networkmanager you can enable wired connection, but wireless disappears. Thus I went back to the 32 bit version which has no problems. I am just wondering, am I missing anything? The reason I am asking is because the 32 bit has SMP support which seems to utilize multiple cores/threads. I guess I am looking for a technical answer within the mechanics of how Linux 32 and Linux 64 utilize the actual multi-processors.

Thanks again for all taking the time to reply, I really appreciate it.

[Gara3987]

Thanks for the support, I found some Linux Drivers for the wireless card and gave Mint 64 Gnome a go. It runs a lot smoother.

[Temporary Saint]

Hey Gara3987, the article you read was published in 2006 and updated in 2008, with the update saying that he'd say to use either one. The stability, support and apps have caught up, but he still asserts that the performance of the two is still pretty much equal. I wonder how much as progressed in the last two years.

Steve

[z06gal]

I have been running Mint9 64bit since it came out with no issues whatsoever. As is the norm for Mint in my experience, it is smooth as velvet.

[piratesmack]

You can always run the 32-bit Flash on a 64-bit installation. It just means you need the 32-bit libs.

This is what I'd do.

The 64-Bit flash plugin has security issues and was discontinued before they could be fixed.
http://www.adobe.com/support/security/b ... 10-14.html

[tdockery97]

I finally figured out how to get back to using Mint 64 instead of 32 on my laptop. I stayed clear of it because Hulu did not work with 64 bit Flash, and after unsuccessfully trying some of the 32 bit on 64 bit Firefox solutions I finally tried something new. I installed Chromium from the repositories and it works with Hulu. So now I can use Firefox for most browsing and Chromium for Hulu without trying to force my system into doing something unnatural. Persistence pays off.

[Colonel Panic]

64 bit OS utilize 64 bit processors where as 32 bit OS will only use 32 bits of it. 64 bit OS will also allow the usage for more than 3GB of RAM. Honestly 64 bit was iffy at best a few years ago with lack of driver and software support, but today, if you have a 64 bit processor, there really is no point in sticking to a 32 bit OS.

I'm interested in this because my local community centre is looking into getting some 64 bit computers and running Linux on at least some of them. What I'd like to know is;

How much RAM do you need to run 64 bit Mint? Would I GB be enough (including swap)?

Thanks in advance;

Colonel Panic .

[vincent]

The Mint Gnome edition (a.k.a. the "Main" edition) calls for 512 MB of RAM as a minimum, although in my experience, Chromium and OpenOffice.org will soon push you over a gig of memory usage. Keep in mind that 64-bit OS'es will typically use 25-30% more RAM than 32-bit OS'es for the same operations, so if 1 GB of memory (including swap) is your limit, you might just want to stick with the 32-bit edition. (That being said, I haven't seen a computer with a 64-bit compatible processor on sale with only 1 GB of memory...most laptop/notebook manufacturers will include either 2 or 4 GB of RAM, and desktop PC's often get even more RAM included out of the box.)

[randomizer]

I'm interested in this because my local community centre is looking into getting some 64 bit computers and running Linux on at least some of them. What I'd like to know is;

How much RAM do you need to run 64 bit Mint? Would I GB be enough (including swap)?

Thanks in advance;

Colonel Panic .

If you're not running alot of RAM and you're not doing anything where a 64-bit environment will be beneficial, just use the i386 build. A reasonable amount of software (particularly proprietary software) has no 64-bit counterpart and you'll end up installing 32-bit libraries anyway.

[Colonel Panic]

Thanks for the replies. I do use 32-bit Mint on my home machine and find it more than adequate for what I want to do, but the decision's pretty much already been made to move our community centre's computers to 64-bit and so whatever runs on them has to be 64-bit itself. I'm sure there'll be at least 1 GB of RAM on each at least, they're hoping to use Windows 7 as well.

[vincent]

Having 64-bit computers does NOT mean you have to run a 64-bit OS. You CAN run a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit computer. Whether you choose to run 32-bit or 64-bit OS on a 64-bit compatible computer is up to you, depending on your own needs. As it is, if you have no specific reason to run a 64-bit OS, you may want to stick with 32-bit just for the lower overall memory usage.

[Colonel Panic]

Having 64-bit computers does NOT mean you have to run a 64-bit OS. You CAN run a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit computer. Whether you choose to run 32-bit or 64-bit OS on a 64-bit compatible computer is up to you, depending on your own needs. As it is, if you have no specific reason to run a 64-bit OS, you may want to stick with 32-bit just for the lower overall memory usage.

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. It isn't really my call as our tech guy makes the decisions (he's the one with a bachelor's degree in computer science) but from what you've said it would make sense for us to stick with 32-bit machines.

[deleted]

..but if you want to access more than 4 gigs of ram on a 32-bit OS, you'll need a PAE kernel.
-Hinto

[vincent]

..but if you want to access more than 4 gigs of ram on a 32-bit OS, you'll need a PAE kernel.
-Hinto

The OP says that he/she plans to have 1 GB of memory on the computer in question, so a PAE kernel would be unnecessary.