32 bit vs 64 bit [SOLVED]

[Nili]

32-bit because it use only 30MB while on Idle.

My desktop is an Dual Core from 2007.
Searching more from this dead horse i find too excessive. Therefore as far it stay, i'll use 32-bit. Since it works excellently on my selecective tools/apps i'm happy.

So, 32-bit for me will stay more longer as my chosed architecture.

[BG405]

Apart from my old machines which have 32-bit CPUs, the only reason I've kept 32-bit Mint on my netbooks is that I haven't gotten the printer drivers working on 64-bit yet. Once this is sorted I'll be switching all machines which can run 64-bit over to that OS architecture, when I make the move to Mint 18. The Dell runs 64-bit Cinnamon (17.3) and will at some point be changed over to LM18.x KDE 64-bit.

[Phuz]

For performance differences between 32 bit and 64 bit you can look at this comparison on Ubunt 16.04 LTS on which Linux Mint 18.x are based: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... -1604-3264. As expected the gains are in programs that do repetitive operations on large quantities of data (creating or transforming multimedia files, encryption, rendering graphics, and so on). Besides the wider data bus (64 bit instead of 32 bit, moving more data per instruction) this is also due to 64 bit being a different processor architecture that has more dedicated registers and instructions heavily optimized for particular tasks.

As for RAM; this isn't Windows Linux Mint 32 bit can address 64 GB physical RAM in total but is limited to 4 GB address space per program. With today's computers Linux Mint 64 bit has no such limits. It can address 256 TB physical RAM (future processors allowing 4 PB, 16 times as much) and has 256 TB address space per program (future processors allowing 16 EB, 65536 times as much). Such a large address space allows the program to use lots of physical RAM and to use features like virtual memory for mapping files to memory where the operating system transparently loads portions of the file on demand into physical RAM when the program accesses that part of the memory mapped file in virtual memory. The kind of programs that benefit from 64 bit performance are also the kind of programs that can benefit from being able to use more than 4 GB address space.

Aside from that, as others have already pointed out, more and more Linux distros are dropping support for 32 bit or are considering it. That is due to decreasing users on 32 bit which make a case to justify cutting maintainer work in half by dropping 32 bit. According to DistroWatch the following 80 Linux distros only come in 64 bit (noted with their popularity ranking on DistroWatch):

Code: Select all

6	elementary OS
12	Antergos
13	Solus
14	PCLinuxOS
21	KDE neon
33	Black Lab Linux
35	Netrunner
37	KaOS
45	Red Hat Enterprise Linux
46	GeckoLinux
52	Korora Project
57	AryaLinux
58	Sabayon
59	Container Linux
60	RancherOS
62	Maui Linux
64	Ubuntu DesktopPack
69	ChaletOS
70	Qubes OS
75	SteamOS
82	AUSTRUMI
91	GoboLinux
92	Chakra GNU/Linux
93	ExTiX
96	Rockstor
103	SolydXK
104	Linux Kodachi
105	Chapeau
106	NethServer
110	Neptune
112	Parted Magic
116	siduction
133	CAINE
143	Proxmox
145	Linux From Scratch
149	Porteus Kiosk
151	Pisi Linux
152	OpenMediaVault
160	Zentyal Server
164	SELKS
165	Void
168	PelicanHPC GNU Linux
169	Whonix
170	3CX Phone System
171	Funtoo Linux
176	DuZeru
178	CRUX
179	Endless OS
183	Sonar GNU/Linux
188	EasyNAS
191	URIX OS
193	Bio-Linux
194	Linpus Linux
197	KXStudio
201	Leeenux
202	LinHES
217	BlueOnyx
222	Exe GNU/Linux
223	Exherbo
225	PoliArch
227	VortexBox
230	Linux Mangaka
233	TurnKey Linux
236	Network Security Toolkit
241	Fermi Linux
243	MAX: Madrid_Linux
244	Rocks Cluster Distribution
246	StressLinux
256	Baruwa Enterprise Edition
262	Kwort Linux
269	eZeY
270	BitKey
271	Volumio
275	Resulinux
276	Asianux
277	Clear Linux
278	Keysoft
279	Subgraph OS
280	Fatdog64 Linux
284	OviOS Linux

That said there are 33 Linux distros according to DistroWatch that are 32 bit only:

Code: Select all

25	Tails
48	Simplicity Linux
50	KNOPPIX
72	4MLinux
95	Wifislax
100	Elive
119	blackPanther OS
120	SystemRescueCd
126	LinuxConsole
128	PrimTux
137	Berry Linux
138	MakuluLinux
144	ConnochaetOS
147	APODIO
148	Endian Firewall
166	Legacy OS
167	OLPC OS
174	GALPon MiniNo
181	Toutou Linux
187	Trusted End Node Security
210	SymphonyOS
213	BOSS GNU/Linux
218	Finnix
224	IPCop Firewall
226	Sophos UTM
238	Thinstation
245	Securepoint Security Suite
260	Webconverger
261	Hanthana Linux
263	LliureX
267	ToriOS
268	Ulteo Open Virtual Desktop
272	SuliX

Thank you Xenopeek!, and the others in this second part of the thread! Some good data and logic presented here! The VM issue has not reared it's head for me as if I do a VM, it's in the past been another Linux I might be working on. Likely, I will never have the displeasure again of needing to run anything Windows since being out of the industry now for a while.

This has in my mind, turned into a great thread and generated good and sound answers all around. Some like me, simply don't have need yet for 64 bit due to the apps we run. My cpus are all 64 bit so I can up the ram if/when needed.

In closure, many thanks to all that put their 2 cents in on this one!!!

Phuz

[Phuz]

Apart from my old machines which have 32-bit CPUs, the only reason I've kept 32-bit Mint on my netbooks is that I haven't gotten the printer drivers working on 64-bit yet. Once this is sorted I'll be switching all machines which can run 64-bit over to that OS architecture, when I make the move to Mint 18. The Dell runs 64-bit Cinnamon (17.3) and will at some point be changed over to LM18.x KDE 64-bit.

BG, drivers as you just mentioned are another good reason (that I'd forgotten about) that has kept me in 32 bit. I have tried several 64 bit releases in the past and found them lacking some support function that I needed... usually printers. Great point!

[linux-dummie]

I'm using only 32-bit Linux on an Athlon64 dual-core for close to 7 years now. I never felt the need to try 64-bit for anything, really, and I'm not a gamer. I value stability and predictability above all else in regards to computering. Linux 32-bit gives me what I need, efficiently, effectively, and completely. On another note, I also use the MX distro. In a recent "What's New" video about the latest MX-16 by runwiththedolphin (a.k.a. dolphin_oracle), he stated "our downloads [of the distro] seem to favor 32-bit....particularly in Europe." He also added, "We're happy to include 32-bit for as long as we can..." I'm glad Mint still offers 32-bit, even in their latest release. There's a good reason for that, you know.

[BEeK]

I never felt the need to try 64-bit for anything, really, and I'm not a gamer.

I believe common users, as you and me won't feel the need for a 64-bit OS... At least not before applications evolve up to a point to favor greatly 64-bit or make them unusable in a 32-bit environment, as it may have happened with the 16->32-bit transition.

But in the high end server world, 64-bit is a necessity for long time already. And I believe it is one of the reasons it was developed.

Are you losing something if you're running 32-bit instead of 64? I believe not, if the applications you need is there for 32-bit... Other than that, I see no disadvantages.

But that is mostly speculation from my part, if anyone have concrete information, please feel free to correct me.

Thank you!

[Pjotr]

Are you losing something if you're running 32-bit instead of 64? I believe not, if the applications you need is there for 32-bit... Other than that, I see no disadvantages.

Correct. However: the 32-bit software range is shrinking, and will continue to do so. Probably with increasing speed.

So what's fine for you today, might not be so tomorrow. For me, the discontinuation of 32-bit Google Chrome was the final impetus towards installing 64-bit on all of my machines that can handle it.

[Cosmo.]

If you have a 32 bit system and if you do not software, which is not provided in the official repositories, you can surely continue to use it without worrying about it. All 32 bit programs in the official repos will stay there, as long as the version of the OS is supported. But if you need also the one or other software from different sources, it might happen, that you wake up the other day and this software has no longer 32 bit support.

If you are thinking about a new system it seems pointless to start new with 32 bit, except the hardware does not support 64 bit.

[Divine_Serpent]

All my hardware has been upgraded to 64 bit CPUs and the only time I use 32 bit software is on 32 bit operating system in various virtual machines. I do not intentionally try to use 64 bit software, but that just seems to be the way its worked out across my computational needs.

[xenopeek]

Tails is the most popular 32 bit only distro on DistroWatch. They are moving to 64 bit only: https://tails.boum.org/news/Tails_3.0_w ... l#index3h1. See especially under the heading "Why this change?" some good arguments as to why 32 bit software is declining.

[thom_A]

I started a similar thread last year, if you're interested.

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=225843

[Hoser Rob]

...So again, I ask the question which seems to have escaped many, are there any real world advantages anyone has, for 64 bit over 32 bit? "It's going away" is not really an answer...

I think it's a perfectly good answer. I had 32 bit Mint on my netbook but when Google announced they were going to drop 32 bit support I did a reinstall of Mint 64 bit. The writing was definitely on the wall.

Also I don't think the existence of 32 bit only distros is going to make any difference if the software base is going to disappear.

[English Invader]

...So again, I ask the question which seems to have escaped many, are there any real world advantages anyone has, for 64 bit over 32 bit? "It's going away" is not really an answer...

I think it's a perfectly good answer. I had 32 bit Mint on my netbook but when Google announced they were going to drop 32 bit support I did a reinstall of Mint 64 bit. The writing was definitely on the wall.

Also I don't think the existence of 32 bit only distros is going to make any difference if the software base is going to disappear.

I can see where the OP is coming from. The question was whether there were any genuine technical reasons why 64-Bit is better or if it was just the man forcing us to upgrade our hardware.

[xenopeek]

The question was whether there were any genuine technical reasons why 64-Bit is better or if it was just the man forcing us to upgrade our hardware.

And it's been answered:

• better performance for specific tasks (vs running a 32 bit OS on the same hardware) -> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a ... -1604-3264
• improved security -> https://tails.boum.org/news/Tails_3.0_w ... l#index3h1
• besides for improved security, more than 4 GiB address space per program (the 32 bit limit) is desirable for specific tasks (like 4K video editing) to be able to use more RAM

[lmintnewb2]

Not in anyway meant as a debate but have to +1 Xenopeek. The writing is on the wall. Am still a sys resource miser from hades, used to get rid of conky, cause considered it bloat and nothing I couldn't get from term fast enough.

If he (Xenopeek) hadn't posted that list of distros going 64bit only, would've taken me awhile(longer) to catch onto that but grateful he did.

Been a long time the winds been blowing and consider it just the way it is. Will surely be distros which fight a rear guard action for outmoded hardware but less n less.

Other than that switch to 64bit or be left behind. Wbtw: don't consider conky bloat anymore.

[sphyrth]

Using candles (32-bit) is still viable. But people are moving on and are selling lamps (64-bit) now.

A few years ago, many are can't just swtich to 64-bit because a software compatibility. Nowadays, 32-bitis struggling because pf software compatibility. This is not some simple trend that will go away. It's just moving on.

I'm staying with my 32-bit system only because I have yet to afford a new machine. As fast as I can, I will upgrade and not wait for the last minute when all of my favorite software to abandon 32-bit support.

[Pjotr]

Haven't ever tried wine.

Note that Wine makes your Linux partially vulnerable for Windows malware:
https://sites.google.com/site/easylinuxtipsproject/wine

Have thought about putting win8 vm in gnu/Nix host.

That's a better solution, because the security of your Linux won't be degraded.

[The Old Timer]

the discontinuation of 32-bit Google Chrome was the final impetus towards installing 64-bit on all of my machines that can handle it.

I'm finding most of my 10 year old computers will run 64 bit Linux distros and the ones that don't I use antiX-16.1 Berta Cáceres.

[English Invader]

Haven't ever tried wine.

Note that Wine makes your Linux partially vulnerable for Windows malware:
https://sites.google.com/site/easylinuxtipsproject/wine

Have thought about putting win8 vm in gnu/Nix host.

That's a better solution, because the security of your Linux won't be degraded.

Not wishing to derail this thread too much, but I would say that any potential virus problems in Wine are dependant on the Windows programs you choose to run. As long as you only use programs from reputable sites and retailers and don't click on any dodgy links or executables (basically the same precautions you should take when using Windows) you should be fine.

[Tomgin5]

This is almost like an old discussion I was having with designers and developers, including Billy the Kid (Gates) before Microsoft was Microsoft. The discussion of 8 bit versus 16 bit or 24 bit. Kinda dates me doesn't it! Unless you are not going to do anything more advanced than you are doing with 32, stick with it, but a capacitor may short (eventually) and everything will be a different OS. 128bit anyone!