32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Prescottech · Post by **Prescottech** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:52 am

Now days, 64 bit is really the only way to go. But I have had problems with 64 bit flash, enough to keep my using 32 bit.

So what about you guys? What are you using right now, and what are your reasons?

krauser · Post by **krauser** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:58 am

If you have the processor for the 64 Bit, just go for it.

vrkalak · Post by **vrkalak** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:16 am

This same topic has been discussed, at least 20 times in the past year or so.

Do a Search in this Forum for this Topic?

Just a few from 'my' Search:
32 vs 64? > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... it#p343762
In the future, will 32-bit or 64-bit win out? > http://forum.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0&p=355774
32-bit vs. 64-bit > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... it#p334220
64 bit? > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... it#p294747
Is 64 bit Ubuntu/Mint really not a good choice? > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... it#p290979

I don't mean to sound 'rude' but use the Forums Search feature first, as most questions of this type, have already been asked.

Prescottech · Post by **Prescottech** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:22 am

vrkalak wrote:This same topic has been discussed, at least 20 times in the past year or so.

Do a Search in this Forum for this Topic?

Just a few from 'my' Search:
32 vs 64? > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... it#p343762
In the future, will 32-bit or 64-bit win out? > http://forum.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.ph ... 0&p=355774
32-bit vs. 64-bit > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... it#p334220
64 bit? > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... it#p294747
Is 64 bit Ubuntu/Mint really not a good choice? > http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... it#p290979

I don't mean to sound 'rude' but use the Forums Search feature first, as most questions of this type, have already been asked.

This is not so much as a "question" as it is an opportunity for others to express their viewpoint, as you just did

willie42 · Post by **willie42** » Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:49 am

I am using 32 bit due to the fact that there is really no noticeable difference in the speed and I dont mess with photos or video editing too much. So I really have no need for 64 bit at the moment.

allypink · Post by **allypink** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 6:10 am

willie42 wrote:I am using 32 bit due to the fact that there is really no noticeable difference in the speed and I dont mess with photos or video editing too much. So I really have no need for 64 bit at the moment.

+1

tacoz · Post by **tacoz** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:06 am

My wife's laptop is a Samsung R522: Core2 Duo, T6400, with 4GB RAM and runs the main edition, x32-Julia. My laptop is a Lenovo W500: Core2 Duo, T9400 with 4GB RAM and runs x64-LMDE.

On either machine one doesn't notice much difference with regular activities like emails, writing documents, not so large spreadsheets, watching movies or even with boot up. Where one does perceive some performance benefits of the x64 OS is when ripping DVDs, scanning properties of large objects, compiling code, database searches and where it's makes a difference and why I prefer x64, is with my x64 virtual machines. While they can run on x32-localhost, they do run better on x64-localhost. Prior to the LMDE... I only used the x64 versions of our main editions and never had major issues. Also, and aside from this particular topic... moving from a Ubuntu base to a Debian base has made a big difference to the "light-weightiness" of Mint. I really like it, it is noticeably different and imho better and faster and I am more than happy to be removed from any legacy-upstream or otherwise--of Ubuntu and back with Debian where this all started so many years ago.

TBABill · Post by **TBABill** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:54 am

I have found quite a few users install 64 bit Linux distros but end up running 32 bit Flash and that's really a bad scenario for performance. The new versions of 64 bit Flash work really well on all 3 Linux machines I have with different hardware, even my really old one with 1GB RAM and an old AMD X2 dual core processor (4200+ I think). With the latest Flash from Adobe and a 64 bit OS I actually get better performance than I did with 32 bit OS and 32 bit flash.

I have seen some claims on Ubuntu where users get poor flash performance. I haven't experienced any degraded performance running 64 bit and anything I install seems to run well on it. I have pretty much migrated all my machines (Windows machines too) to 64 bit and I haven't hit any scenarios where 32 bit would benefit me.

It does seem hardware specific sometimes whether someone will see any gain or benefit using a 64 bit OS, even on systems capable of running 64 bit OS's. Sometimes I think "64 bit capable" is very different from "runs 64 bit OS's well".

rivenathos · Post by **rivenathos** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:00 am

On 64-bit hardware, I run a 64-bit OS. I also use the 64-bit flash. No issues.

monkeyboy · Post by **monkeyboy** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:52 am

I am using two 64 bit versions of Linux on my machine. Without them I am up against the 4 gig memory barrier and not caring for the performance of the PAE kernel the 64 bit solution was the way to go. As far as Flash is concerned the 64 bit version works just fine for me.
My suggestion for folks who are on the fence is try both 32 and 64 bit versions. That is the only way to know which version really works best for a given user on their particular hardware configuration while meeting their unique computing needs. Otherwise an undecided user can get caught up in the never ending 32 VS 64 debate. Good Luck

N!cke · Post by **N!cke** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:11 pm

I'm running the LMDE 64.
Trying the 64-bit flash (square) today, so far no problems...

N!cke

gn2 · Post by **gn2** » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:11 pm

I've been using 64 bit Ubuntu for almost three years, as far as I can remember it's been without any problems.
Currently I am evaluating LMDE 64 with a view to switching at some point in the future.
I would not use 32 unless the hardware is only 32.

craig10x · Post by **craig10x** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:39 am

By the way, i think that ubuntu uses the 32 bit flash even for their 64 bit edition..where as Linux Mint actually provides the true 64 bit Adobe Flash which has excellent performance on the 64 bit system...This could account for the difference in performance...

catilley1092 · Post by **catilley1092** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:56 pm

Both of my computers have 64 bit hardware. I've tried 32 bit Mint (currently running Mint 11) on both, PAE was enabled, but that's not quite the same as a true 64 bit install, as far as using 4GB (or more) RAM. I run Windows 7 on VirtualBox, there is a noticeable difference between a true 64 bit OS & 32 bit with PAE enabled. Plus the computers run cooler & faster, as well as longer battery life on my notebook. PAE makes the computer work harder.

For a while, I ran 32 bit with PAE because (in all honesty) I was too lazy to learn how to install the 64 bit driver for my printer in the terminal. I preferred the .deb driver, which was a simple install in the 32 bit Mint. Once I got over the intimidation of the terminal, life for running 64 bit became much better for me.

So my opinion is this, if one has 64 bit hardware and has 4GB (or more) RAM, go for 64 bit. If the computer has 3GB (or less) RAM (even if the computer has 64 bit hardware), then 32 bit will be fine. Because there is no advantage in running 64 bit on 3GB or less RAM. If anything, running 64 bit on 3GB (or less) RAM will not perform as well as a 32 bit will. That's because 64 bit requires a higher minimum amount of RAM to run.

The bottom line is the hardware & what the user intends to run on the OS, as which bit version to install.

Hope that my opinion is useful!

Cat

DrHu · Post by **DrHu** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:25 pm

I have used both 64bit and 32bit Linuxes usually with 32 bit applications such as browsers installed, since the 64bit extensions (flash) and so took some time to fix..
--I started with a 64bit OS when Gentoo came out with it first, and tended to be using AMD processors, being cheaper than Intel, and as far as I was concerned just as good. (except for temperature perhaps, but not much of a problem with a desktop system)
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/amd64/

I found little if any difference, except 64bit does compile software quicker.

Since there is little or no penalty for mixing 32 and 64bit applications on a 64bit OS; and assuming you do have a good enough RAM setup, suggest having at least 4GB or more to properly utilize an OS
--it's never a real problem..

linuxviolin · Post by **linuxviolin** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:29 pm

Prescottech wrote:Now days, 64 bit is really the only way to go

Not at all. Use 64 bit just if you have a 64 bit hardware with at least 4 GB RAM and if you have a *real* need for 64 bit.

There is few, if any sometimes, gain with 64 bit and the great majority of the time, say 80% (or 90%?), you have no real need for 64 bit. Yes, for some works 64 bit is faster but generally these are not "principal" things like you can see from posts here and elsewhere. So if you have 4 GB RAM and a 64 bit hardware, you can choose. Think to your use to know if you *really* need for 64 bit, then choose.

If you have less of 4 GB RAM, use 32 bit, even on a 64 bit hardware.

thatsallurspaceships · Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:12 pm

Why not install both?!
It is afaik no problem to run 32 AND 64 Bit on one computer

You need around 5 GB more space of harddisc (shouldn't be a problem with 4GB Ram machine) If this is possible you can use 64 Bit i.e. if you need to edit a video or make a lot in gimp

gn2 · Post by **gn2** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:46 am

catilley1092 wrote: If the computer has 3GB (or less) RAM (even if the computer has 64 bit hardware), then 32 bit will be fine. Because there is no advantage in running 64 bit on 3GB or less RAM. If anything, running 64 bit on 3GB (or less) RAM will not perform as well as a 32 bit will. That's because 64 bit requires a higher minimum amount of RAM to run.

You did say that this was you're opinion, so that's fair enough.
Fact is you are wrong.
If you do not max out the RAM and use swap, 64 will perform certain tasks faster than 32 irrespective of how much RAM is installed.

catilley1092 · Post by **catilley1092** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:11 pm

It's only been a week since I've converted my Linux installs (Mint 11, Ubuntu 11.04) to 64 bit, it's worked out well for me. My desktop has 4GB RAM, laptop has 6GB. Being that I need to use VirtualBox at times, I seen it as my best option.

The only app that hasn't worked well for me since moving to 64 bit is Google Earth. It may (or may not) be a Flash issue. I need to research it further.

However, for the majority of users, 32 bit Mint is quite fine. I've used it for over 2 years, beginning with Gloria, with no problems. The main issue with 64 bit seems to be the lack of apps written for the platform. But I can say that Mint has a lot more working 64 bit apps than Windows does. Nearly everything on a 64 bit Windows install is still 32 bit, as far as the software goes.

Cat

gn2 · Post by **gn2** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:12 pm

Try the Firefox add-on Flashaid for flash issues.

Linux Mint Forums

32 Bit vs 64 Bit

32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit

Re: 32 Bit vs 64 Bit