64 bit version as "main" version?

[ddavid123]

Since all new computers sold today are 64 bit, and multi-core at that, would it not make more sense to make the main version of Linux Mint the 64 bit one? Linux Mint 9 will probably be the LTS release, but I don't know if the current 64 bit release scheme gets the LTS. When Linux Mint 9 64 bit is released, will it have the same LTS support of the main release? If not, why not make the 64 bit version the main version that gets the LTS.

[Rodrigian]

I totaly agree. Perhaps the 32 bit version should be released after the 64 bit version. Also a small app to check if your computer is 64 bits capable should made available for download so to let the users check if they have a 64 bit processor

[Kaye]

I don't know where it is, but a lengthy discussion on this has already taken place.

The short answer is that 64 bit will not become the main version in the near future.

[exploder]

The short answer is that 64 bit will not become the main version in the near future.

Good answer! I was trying to find a nice way to say that.

[Kaye]

I thought it wasn't too harsh

I just wish I could find that thread. It's close to five pages on the subject but I don't know which search terms to use.

[Lantesh]

You know it really depends on how you look at things. Personally I consider Gnome to be the "Main" version, which is available in x32 and x64.

[brennus]

Well, x64, unlike Gnome or KDE, is actually an improvement, not a subject of taste. Don't you think is nearly time to switch from 32-bit to 64? Let's vote!

[Kaye]

Well, x64, unlike Gnome or KDE, is actually an improvement, not a subject of taste. Don't you think is nearly time to switch from 32-bit to 64? Let's vote!

As I said, there has been a long and drawn out discussion on the topic (including many team members), I just don't know where it is. The decision has been made that 32 will remain the main version for the time being.

At this point in time, 64 bit is not that big of an improvement over 32. It simply isn't worth it to make 64 bit the main edition, especially considering the number of people that would be excluded from the main release simply because they don't own a 64 bit system.

[subslug]

I went with the 64 bit version of Mint 7 and now I'm glad I did.
As much multimedia stuff as I do on my PC now, it's nice to take full advantage of the processors capabilities and, I really don't find any of the incompatibilities that 64 bit was known for just a year or so ago. It's really rock solid now. In the past there was always some little "gotcha" that would pop up and make you regret using 64 bit but now, not so much.
I can't really compare system performance to the 32 bit version since I haven't tried 32 bit Mint 7 on here. I can only assume that as far as editing or creating huge multimedia files, 64 bit has to be faster.

I'm not so sure making 64 bit the default version is the way to go just yet though. The beauty of Linux is that we claim you don't need state of the art hardware to run it. If you make 64 bit standard then you're sort of making the statement that now you do need newer hardware to run it and I don't think the Linux world really wants to make that claim.

I think it's best to default to what will work on the most hardware with the least problems, even though 64 bit is pretty sweet.

[Aging Technogeek]

kaye,


I think this is the thread you were looking for.

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... t=mint+x64

4 pages, 50 posts on whether to make Mint main 64 bit or continue with 32 bit.


ddavid123,

I have used both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Mint 6 and Mint 7 on several machines and found no advantage with 64 bit Mint (or Windows) for the types of apps run by most home computer users. If you need more than 3 Gb of RAM, or you are doing some heavy computational work. the 64 bit is available. However, most users will not get any benefit from it and many cannot afford the 20 to 30 percent increase in RAM usage that is part of the overhead of a 64 bit OS.

[DrHu]

Since all new computers sold today are 64 bit, and multi-core at that, would it not make more sense to make the main version of Linux Mint the 64 bit one?

Not all, not even all notebooks: not even all new notebooks
--I picked notebooks, since they have seemingly become more popular, and have matched sales of desktops, even though, apart from the convenience factor, a desktop is the better value

• Ease of upgrading
  Sturdier components
  Less heat issues
  Bigger hard drives
  More RAM
  Better graphics options

http://www.start64.com/index.php?option ... &Itemid=70
Since all new computers sold today are 64 bit..
Mint is only for new computer user, you suggest
--the ones that will get win7 installed on their computers by default, and the largest majority of which are unlikely to even look at Linux

Since mint or indeed most Linux distributions won't be able to convert such a group of consumers, it makes no sense for them (distributions) to abandon their current base in the hopes of attracting a new base
--this despite the fact that I have had a 64bit Linux OS running since it became available (Gentoo), and long before either Apple, then Microsoft offered their 64bit OS versions..
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2006 ... editi.html
http://icrontic.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9015
http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/6279
http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/114024

And many people are getting suckered by those OS installs, which often have the minimum RAM needed for effective 64bit OS operations, that is 4GB RAM, I don't know if the stores are still selling a 64bit OS (windows) with 3GB RAM, but they used to ?

If you need a 64bit OS, because you need the processing power and memory use: large amount of RAM
You will not be satisfied with the maximum available in a notebook or necessarily the more expense required than in a desktop..
--unless you have money to burn, in which case that is not the majority of potential users; hence the unexpected rise of Netbook (small notebooks with even more limited capacities). It will be quite a joke if a Netbook will ever have a 64bit OS installed, but knowing marketing trend setters it could possibly happen.

As to dual-core, that is a trick, at least in Intel's case.
--instead of a true multi-processor system, with each CPU having its own subsystem

[Kaye]

kaye,


I think this is the thread you were looking for.

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... t=mint+x64

4 pages, 50 posts on whether to make Mint main 64 bit or continue with 32 bit.

Thanks, this is exactly the thread I was referring to.

[nukm]

I have used/use both platforms and see no advantage to the 32 bit.

[Kaye]

I have used/use both platforms and see no advantage to the 32 bit.

Then you obviously aren't being objective.

[brennus]

Okay then, but could the 64-bit edition have the same priority as 32-bit one? Like Ubuntu... Now, the 64-bit version of Mint comes out much later and it's also said it's not as stable as 32-bit one. That's not fair! Users are pushed to install 32-bit one as it comes out, of course, they could wait, but... everyone around using 32-bit one, while... oh. Okay.

[haruspexed]

i think the main problem with the 64bit edition is not that 32bit is still prefered... i think the problems are some buggy mainstream apps and libraries like flash in 64bit and others that are that buggy in 64bit that it is not worth to set 64bit as main version... just a thought...

[Superewza]

Also, Linux really doesn't require more RAM yet. It runs fine with 2GB, well with 1GB and perfectly with 3GB. And as far as i can tell, that's the only real advantage. It's a bit disappointing when you consider stuff like the move from 4bit to 8bit, and 8bit to 16bit.

[Oscar799]

I've been using Mint 7 64 bit for a couple of weeks now,before that I used Mint 7 32 bit for 10 weeks or so.
I have a 64bit processor and 4GB RAM in my laptop.As a fairly ordinary home user I can't honestly say I've noticed an improvement in performance.
I intend to stick with it for the time being but when Mint 8 is released I may do a clean install of the 32bit.

[nukm]

There are other 64 bit distros if this one doesn't satisfy.

However, much of the argument on this thread is from Hutterites. Mint 7x 64 is very stable. I don't do lemming upgrades every 6 months. I too would like to see an LTS x64. But, that is up to Clem and Gang. I can always find an x64 and I have. I do not presume to tell Clem what he should.

This is for the Hutterites. And the faint of heart.
http://tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904- ... benchmarks

I've run Fedora 64 since way back, openSUSE, etc. I have Debian 5 x64 running now,RHEL 5x64, Slack 13x64 is in and I'm still playing with it and little lilo and I have Mint 7x64 in at least one box.

So, if you are considering installing x64, what's the problem? Stop listening to the FUD. Oh, Xubuntu 9.04 x64 was very nice - I really liked that as it was clean and lively.

I did Deb benchmarks using Deb 5 for both 32 and 64 on equal partitions, identical setup, same HD. 64 won. Now, my benchmarks are no good for your machine. I haven't benchmarked Mint 7.

[monkeyboy]

I don't see a problem. We get to use fine 32 & 64 bit releases so why should we care which one is the main release or which one comes out first?