32 bit vs 64 bit [SOLVED]

Chat about Linux in general
The Old Timer
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 293
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:36 pm

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby The Old Timer » Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:58 am

Tomgin5 wrote:but a capacitor may short (eventually)

Capacitors are easy to change out and only takes a couple of hours to recap a motherboard if parts are already on hand.

User avatar
Tomgin5
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:37 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon USA

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby Tomgin5 » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:24 pm

Yes the caps may be replaced in a few hours. if you have the parts available and if you are handy at replacing surface mounted components, and it one of the regulators is not blow out from the overcurrent, and if none of the other components were not burnt out. :mrgreen:

lmintnewb2

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby lmintnewb2 » Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:03 pm

^Yeah dated but interesting, not many who can say they hung out w B Gates pre-m$.

Thanks Pjotr, had read about wine and just didn't seem worth the hassle. I don't really game on pc's. Been slowly dipping toes into kvm just cause the concept/tech involved seems really cool.

So will likely install win8.1 on a vm for awhile just for the experience.

User avatar
dXTC
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:19 pm
Location: Closer to the Derby than I care to admit

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby dXTC » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:27 am

lmintnewb2 wrote:^Yeah dated but interesting, not many who can say they hung out w B Gates pre-m$.



I can sort of relate to this anecdote. My wife's grandmother had a boyfriend who had written logistics scheduling programs on some of the old hulking UNIVAC and CDC machines back in the day. We started "talking shop" one afternoon, and it turns out that one of his bosses was the legendary Grace Hopper. Small world, huh?

Anyway, back to the topic...
I have feet in both waters. I'm running Mint Xfce 32-bit on my little Lenovo netbook, because 64-bit was slow and unstable on it. On my other three Linux machines (see my signature), I'm running Mint Cinnamon 64-bit, as they're all Core 2 Duos.

(One small side note: The Dell Latitude is a dual-boot with 32-bit Windows XP on the other partition-- strictly as a backup machine for Cakewalk Sonar, a DAW that is Windows only. I have the WiFi driver disabled in XP.)
dXTC
-----
IT oldie, Linux newbie, and all-around goofy fellow.
Mint Cinnamon on Dell XPS 210, Optiplex 760, Inspiron N4110 and Latitude E4200;
Mint Xfce on Lenovo Ideapad S10.
Some OS X and WinXP too; I'm multi-platform like that.

User avatar
Linuxfarmer
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 12:46 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby Linuxfarmer » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:49 pm

Pretty topic,

with Ubuntu Hardy Heron i had installed my first 64bit linux on a machine with a Pentium-D. It delights me with faster calculation in movie and audio conversions, although there was only 4GB of memory in the machine. At these times ubuntu was nearly 100% equipped with software in 64-bit mode. Like the old question, assume you have an V8 engine in your car, why to disable 4 cylinders?

Today my Thinkpad 11E is a very reliable workhorse with quadcore and 4GB, the last 32-Bit linux was sold with a netbook :D

Reminds me, that for real UEFI a 64 bit operating system is a requirement. Don't see an argument to use a 32-bit system if 64-bit is possible.
My linux farm: AMD64-Desktop, Thinkpad 11e / 200t, D-Link DNS325 (Alt-F), Brother HL-4150 CDN (LAN)

Petermint
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby Petermint » Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:22 pm

One of my computers is 32 bit and runs all the same software in the latest releases in 0.5 GB. That would be a problem for every OS except Linux.

One of my computers dual boots to Windows and that means 64 bit today even though the machine is only 4 GB. Last year the dual boot booted to 64 bit Windows some weeks and 32 bit Windows other weeks because each Microsoft application required one and only one of the two choices but the did not share the same choice. The final Windows application was 64 bit so there is 64 bit Windows installed. Luckily this year I am down to zero uses for Windows for a few months and may be able to ditch it completely after my next project.

I do have one 16 GB machine and used over 4 GB for one development project but the long running result uses only about 1 GB. I have no need for 64 bit this year.

Across all my machines in 2016 I gained the most speed by replacing their slow old SSDs with new high performance SSDs. Given the choice between 64 bit and SSD, 4K, faster Wifi, 4G+, almost every other upgrade gives you a bigger performance gain.

KBD47
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:03 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby KBD47 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:48 pm

Approximately a year ago I had several 32 bit machines. I will now be down to a single 32 bit machine. So even though I have a habit of keeping old machines going as long as they are useful I have found myself breaking away from 32 bit without actually trying. I think in another year or two this topic will pretty much be dead as there will be so few 32 bit machines left in use. I hope I'm wrong and that the old machines are still useful to someone.
This article says 64 bit became popular around 2009 with Win7:

Linux was the first OS to support the x86–64 platform (in 2000, actually prior to the public release of x86–64 CPUs). OS X was 64-bit in 2003 for the PowerPC platform, but didn’t do x86–64 until 2007. Microsoft released a 64-bit version of Windows XP in 2005, but wide support of 64-bit Windows didn’t really happen until Windows 7 in 2009.

https://www.quora.com/Is-64-bits-operat ... a-standard

That is what I have seen there being a few exceptions. So we are talking about some pretty old machines still on 32 bit architecture at this point. Of course Linux still makes it possible for those old machines to be useful. But the time is probably running out for most of the old machines.

Petermint
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby Petermint » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:44 pm

The ten millionth Raspberry Pi went out to the education sector last year and only one model is 64 bit so they run everything as 32 bit. The lowest cost model will be 32 bit for many years because they want to drive the cost down and do not need a performance improvement. Switching from USB 2 to USB 3 is up at the top of their list of things to do next. 64 bit is not on the list.

KBD47
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:03 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby KBD47 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:52 pm

Petermint wrote:The ten millionth Raspberry Pi went out to the education sector last year and only one model is 64 bit so they run everything as 32 bit. The lowest cost model will be 32 bit for many years because they want to drive the cost down and do not need a performance improvement. Switching from USB 2 to USB 3 is up at the top of their list of things to do next. 64 bit is not on the list.


True. But they mostly use specialized operating systems. One exception being Ubuntu MATE, which I understand is usable but not particularly quick on a Pi.
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/pi-operating-systems/

Petermint
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby Petermint » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:29 pm

The Pi uses Raspbian, a Debian derivative similar to Ubuntu, with LXDE as the GUI. You can use answers from the Ubuntu forums if there is nothing in the Raspbian forums. The Pi 3 has 4 cores and is fast enough for typing an answer into a Linux Mint forum. :)

The GPU in the Pi processor is fast compared to most low power computers. You can play Bluray and stuff. Disks, Ethernet, and Wifi are limited by an internal USB 2 connection, making the Pi too slow for a general purpose NAS and similar projects. There are no problems with media streaming for a TV.

The USB 2 internal interface gives you a limit of about 32 ~ 35 megabytes per second. There are whole schools running on a Pi based system. The Pi based curriculum starts at age 8. They learn Scratch then Python. They build robots. The space station uses a Pi to measure astronaut health. For the top model, the Pi 3, the limitation is that IO speed.

Petermint
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby Petermint » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:31 pm

For those that are that way inclined, there is Windows IoT. :twisted:

User avatar
killer de bug
Level 14
Level 14
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Graz, Austria

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby killer de bug » Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:40 pm

RaspberryPi have ARM CPUs. So you can't use them to make arguments about ix86 and amd64 bits... :)
Image
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

KBD47
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:03 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby KBD47 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:43 pm

killer de bug wrote:RaspberryPi have ARM CPU. So you can't use them to make arguments about ix86 and amd64 bits... :)


Especially when it comes to Linux. I have seen this with Chromebooks. The Intel chip 64 bit Chromebooks do great with Linux, but the ARM/mobile chip Chromebooks are fairly horrible and some Linux apps don't work at all on ARM.

User avatar
Phuz
Level 1
Level 1
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:49 pm

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Postby Phuz » Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:25 pm

Have been offsite for a while and just now back home. This IMHO has turned into a terrific thread with good and bad points on both sides.
There have been a few cases made for 64 bit that had not occurred to me and slightly more cases made that if 32 bit works for your needs...
Anyhow, I wanted to extend a sincere thanks to all that participated here! Some offered opines, many had valid data to support the 64 bit model,
but a really good bundle of info in this thread!!! :D

Some of the points I liked most were issues like printer drivers. Another was SSDs. I have had SSDs all around for a bit and they certainly do blaze
compared to older platter drives. Not doing video editing, CAD, PhotoShop, database work and the such, I would have nothing to gain at this point from
moving to 64 bit other than fighting printers. There will, I agree, come the day when I have to make the switch. By then, I7 cpu and boards will be $200 bucks
and they "may" have a better stock of drivers in 64 bit.

Again, thanks to all!!!

User avatar
xfrank
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:09 pm
Location: Mexico City
Contact:

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit [SOLVED]

Postby xfrank » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:31 pm

Sorry for "reopening" this thread but It's a chat, and the subject is still actual. I've tested 32 bit and 64 bit version of LM 18.1 Xfce in some computers, and I've found that OLD machines with 2GB RAM (or less) won't perform well with 64 bit even if the processor is 64 bit capable (like core 2 duo). For this kind of configuration, 32 bit is better. But for NEWer machines with weak hardware (like celeron N...) with 2GB RAM 64 bit works just fine.
Performance of 64 bit or 32 bit is just the same if running "average" programs like Firefox or LibreOffice, if there is a difference, is negligible. And about memory usage, 2GB is enough for multitasking (Firefox + LibreOffice + Terminal + Thunar + RadioTray, for example), without swapping.
More important in choosing between 32/64 is the compatibility with old printers/scanners.
Just my 2 cents...
Linux everywhere. Active Distros in my many computers: LM17.3 (Cinnamon, Xfce); LM18.1 (Cinnamon,Xfce); LMDE 2 (Mate), MXLinux (Xfce), Debian 9 (Xfce).

lmintnewb2

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit [SOLVED]

Postby lmintnewb2 » Wed May 24, 2017 6:00 am

Same as Xfrank, not so much meaning to bump but this is fairly recent and still a valid topic of discussion me thinks.

The resource miser in me has won out. Am switching sides on this issue. Think 32bit is fine and dandy for majority of general computing purposes and users. It's going to stay around for quite some time too. While certainly comes with limitations as listed through-out the thread. Distro's going 64bit only, software developers progressively too. Though see that as a moot point. Someone can always multiboot if they desire something 64bit only.

Have always been a fanatical software tweaker. Was while using window$, even more so after migrating to gnu/Linux. :D I don't see the point in using more resources to do the same thing with no noticeable difference. Much gnu/Nix is getting too bloated, the stuff I config has always been much lighter than the off the shelf Nix anyway but a tweaked 32bit install is kicking hell out of it's almost clone 64bit cousin here in terms of system overhead (during web-browsing specifically), shrugs.

I'm taking my toys and going back to 32bit ! :)


Pointless update: Sighs ... nope can't bring myself to turn that 64bit install into a 64bit bootloader, keeping both installed, arghhhh ! Though honestly will be using 32bit majority of time. Using twice or more of my dang ram to visit the same websites and workload just flatout doesn't make any sense to me.

Consider things like a laptop, more RAM and system overhead means shorter battery charge etc. So 64bit may be the future but am going to take advantage of 32bit while it lasts. ;)

lmintnewb2

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit [SOLVED]

Postby lmintnewb2 » Wed May 24, 2017 5:15 pm

Errrrr, ok ... switching sides again. Was wrong in this and glad didn't overreact and turn 64bit into a bootloader ! Here's the deal ...

<Censored>, <censored> .... <censored> again !!!!!!

Seems I screwed up, am wrong about this <censored> !!!! I hate when this happens ! :D

Turns out I hadn't tweaked the FF correctly in the friggin 64bit install. Mmmmm, have I mentioned <censored>yet ?! The profiles for the regularly installed FF-esr thingy and the FF I stash in ~/ were mixed up. So 64bit was running sans noscript and w/o tweakage !!!! Plus some other assorted disadvantages for the 64bit OS overall, that I'd addressed earlier.

Sighs, anyway ... 64bit FF 7webpgs ( 2 of which are even allowed in noscript ... this and another gnu/Nix forum.) and it's using total of 437mbs-ram. So face meet palm, was making a big deal out of nothing, 350 vs 437 is no biggie. Arghhhhh ! Still keeping both but flopping back to preferring 64bit. :)

Petermint
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit [SOLVED]

Postby Petermint » Wed May 24, 2017 9:35 pm

Found a new use for 64 bit. I occasionally have to run a Windows based program and they never work in Wine. Now I have to run one last in program and it does work in Wine. No more dual boot to Windows. :D

The program is 32 bit. You run a 64 bit OS in 8 GB or more and have a chunk of 4 GB for your Winey little 32 bit program.

On a desktop, I have not found a program using 3 GB, let alone more than 4. Isolating applications in VMs makes sense then creates pain when you have to share data between applications.

Something like Meld could use more than 4 GB when comparing large directories but Meld is written in Python which means it will fail long before it gets anywhere near 4 GB. That leaves 64 bit as a way to cache file info on multi terabyte drives which is useless with affordable SSDs limited to one TB.

User avatar
BG405
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:09 pm
Location: England

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit [SOLVED]

Postby BG405 » Thu May 25, 2017 10:03 am

When I first switched from 32-bit to 64-bit Cinnamon (LM17.3) I did notice a small hit on responsiveness, but that was before the numerous tweaks which have taken place since. However, Firefox still takes about a week to hog the entire available RAM & SWAP, necessitating a browser restart. I'd probably squeeze a bit longer out of it with 32-bit, not realy sure. That is with hundreds of tabs loaded; although they are not "active" until clicked on they still occupy the cache, which is handy as I don't lose previous search results.

When I reinstall on this machine (the Dell Inspiron 1525) I'll be using KDE and, following this and related threads, probably do a dual boot with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. This is for two main reasons:

  • Initial performance testing
  • Enabling printer driver support, until I can get it working in 64-bit.

A good test will be Kdenlive. This should, in theory, perform better with 64-bit, as should K3b (which takes about 40 minutes to make an ISO from a video DVD on my Acer netbook!).
Dell Inspiron 1525 - LM17.3 CE 64-------------------Acer D255E 2GB - LM17.3 KDE 32
Toshiba NB305 - LM17.3 Xfce 32--------------------K7S5A Athlon 1.2GHz - LM17.3 Xfce 32 & WinXP-Pro
Acer Aspire E11 ES1-111M - LM18.2 KDE 64 -----Dell PII 350 64MB - Puppy 4.3 & Win98-SE

Petermint
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: 32 bit vs 64 bit [SOLVED]

Postby Petermint » Thu May 25, 2017 6:31 pm

Firefox a hog? I found based KDE applications are worse. My Firefox is set to start with an empty cache. After a full day of use, it is not hogging resources.

I use Noscript for safety and that also stops advertisers from downloading their junk. Some pages have dozens of Javascript downloads just for advertisers. Some of the downloads contain hundreds of kilobytes of Javascript framework just to track your mouse movement. Given ten advertisers with each downloading a different framework, a few days of browsing would flood your machine.

There are also add-on modules for Firefox that use more resources than Firefox. I tested some and deleted them because they did nothing to justify their memory or CPU usage.

Currently Firefox is using 230 MB. That little software update icon was using 34 MB. I shut that down immediately after it checks for updates each day. The Bluetooth indicator is using 21.8 MB, I never use it, and I would change it to not automatically start if I my machine was short of memory.

If you do need the memory saving that 32 bit gives you, compared to 64 bit, I would look at your Firefox settings, Firefox add-ons, and switching from Cinnamon to LXDE or XFCE, not KDE.


Return to “Chat about Linux”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests