32-bit or 64-bit KDE first?

[Boo]

The 64-bit architecture seems to be gaining popularity so time to vote on which should be developed first for Isadora.

The race was close but due to compatibility issues I will continue to build the 32bit version first.
Thanks to everyone who voted and posted.

[richyrich]

How big of a percentage of users have more than 2 Gb of RAM ?
- 32 bit.

And for me personally, I like the 32 bit for App compatibility.

Edit: Anyone else having fun with flash-64 ?

[exploder]

I am not going to vote because it is up to the community but I think the 32 bit should be developed first. The 32 bit version will work on a wider range of computers and it has a pae enabled kernel. Don't misunderstand me, I have switched to 64 bit myself and I like it. I am just thinking about those that may not have a 64 bit system.

[XidCat]

To me, 64 bit just isn't fully cooked yet. I was using the 32 bit Main Edition with the PAE kernel (I have a 64 bit box w/6Gb RAM), it worked great. I switched to the 64 bit version and it was a pain. I moved to the KDE CE because I like KDE more than Gnome, but 4.x was a train wreck. It runs very smooth, like the Main 32 bit. I am not eager to recreate my 64 bit woes any time soon....

[tonyric]

How big of a percentage of users have more than 2 Gb of RAM ?
- 32 bit.

And for me personally, I like the 32 bit for App compatibility.

Edit: Anyone else having fun with flash-64 ?

Flash64 works fine here as either the 64bit version or through the nspluginwrapper hack.

[JoeFootball]

I switched to the 64 bit version and it was a pain.

I'm making considerations to switching to 64-bit myself. What sort of issues did you encounter? Perhaps you could comment in another post I have on the subject? Trying to gather info before I make my decision.

Thanks!

Joe

[martosurf]

I'm running a 64-bit system with 4GB and that's why I want a 64-bits Mint, because I know it will rock.

[tonyric]

First? Well, I voted 64bit as I will not use a 32bit distro. But, in reality, I feel that the changes applied to one should be done at the same time. I am willing to help with this to the extent of my ability, but this is a closed process. I feel that it is a disservice to the distro as a whole to do one then apply patches to the other at some later date. Why not do both at the same time and release both simultaneously which means the testing of the RC's can be done by all.

[martosurf]

First? Well, I voted 64bit as I will not use a 32bit distro. But, in reality, I feel that the changes applied to one should be done at the same time. I am willing to help with this to the extent of my ability, but this is a closed process. I feel that it is a disservice to the distro as a whole to do one then apply patches to the other at some later date. Why not do both at the same time and release both simultaneously which means the testing of the RC's can be done by all.

Agree.

While it's true I'm waiting for the 64b version I know there's lot of people out there who still is using 32 bit systems.

[XidCat]

I switched to the 64 bit version and it was a pain.

I'm making considerations to switching to 64-bit myself. What sort of issues did you encounter? Perhaps you could comment in another post I have on the subject? Trying to gather info before I make my decision.

Of course I had the good old 64 bit Flash problem (that's Adobe's doing). But, more importantly, I have used Mint for over a year now (32 bit) on 5 computers in my house. I have never had any problems. 3 of the computers still have the original Mint install from way back when (one of the computers has never been turned off or rebooted). They simply work. I put put Mint 7 64 bit on my 64 bit box and immediately noticed minor, but annoying issues. Programs that never froze or seg faulted before started to do so randomly, not often, but from never having a problem it was noticeable. There are other minor annoyances, such as finding 64 bit .debs. If you want a certain program, there isn't always a 64 bit version available, but 32 bit is always there. Some people will say to use dpkg --force-architecture to install a 32 bit program on a 64 bit OS. Yep, it can be done... at the risk of trashing the install. In the end, I analyzed my computer usage and found that 95% of the time I do not need 64 bit power. I installed Mint 64 on one HDD and Mint KDE 32 on the other. I use 32 bit to do my daily stuff and only boot into 64 when I have to.

[rom515]

I made the move over to 64-bit with Vista, then Windows 7 and finally on to Linux permanently. I have never had any issues with video, audio, applications, plugins, flash or any of the other software programs I use. Even with most of the applications running in 32-bit mode, I still have never encountered any issues as of yet. My desktop, at the moment, has 8 Gigs of Ram and laptop has 4. This all will soon change with an increase to both, but I could not ever see myself using a 32-bit operation system again. I understand PAE used in linux, but in my opinion, nothing substitutes using more than 4 Gigs of Ram and utilizing my 64-bit optimized processors as a native 64-bit environment can. The 64-bit apps I do use for converting my DVD's to H.264, as well as my audio to .MP4, work faster and more efficiently in a 64-bit environment too. So my vote, is 64-bit first. But in all fairness, I think they should both be treated equally, but to try and steer people towards migrating over to 64-bit and helping them understand the advantages. Eventually this will be the only direction of processors anyway, as many applications have finally got on board and are migrating over as well and phasing out their 32-bit support. Just as Blu-Ray has taken over DVD's and will phase them out completely over the next year or so, 64-bit is doing the same. And just as computer parts change, and every software giant discontinues support for older software that has less technological advantages to keeping it installed, this is just the same pattern and nothing new.

[big_dog1968]

I am not going to vote because it is up to the community but I think the 32 bit should be developed first. The 32 bit version will work on a wider range of computers and it has a pae enabled kernel. Don't misunderstand me, I have switched to 64 bit myself and I like it. I am just thinking about those that may not have a 64 bit system.

How well do 32 bit programs make use of the additional ram in PAE Kernel. I have 6 gigs of ram.

[tonyric]

I am not going to vote because it is up to the community but I think the 32 bit should be developed first. The 32 bit version will work on a wider range of computers and it has a pae enabled kernel. Don't misunderstand me, I have switched to 64 bit myself and I like it. I am just thinking about those that may not have a 64 bit system.

How well do 32 bit programs make use of the additional ram in PAE Kernel. I have 6 gigs of ram.

Applications are still limited to the 32bit environment, but the OS has a higher limit. So, you can run more apps with the same old limits. But, performance in PAE systems degrades vs 64bit goodness and it is noticeable. I have a quad core 2.66GHz 8GB system running 8 vm's and tried 32bit PAE about 8 months ago and the performance sucked compared to 64.

[tonyric]

So far 11 for 32bit and 16 for 64bit. Now, I do know and understand that us 64bit guys are more likely to vote, but this is not close so far. What does surprise me is that there are over 200 views of this thread and only 27 votes.

[DataMan]

Boo,
Any timing estimates if 64 bit wins out? I had to install Kubuntu 64 bit this past weekend ... would really prefer going Mint.

-DataMan

[Jay514]

The only logical thing to do, is move forward, in order to keep up with technology. Therefore x64 would be a great choice, but I agree that x32 still has it's place in the computing world. I will just be happy just to see a X64 ver of mint KDE. Thanks Boo & All,
Jay514

[olligod]

First? Well, I voted 64bit as I will not use a 32bit distro. But, in reality, I feel that the changes applied to one should be done at the same time. I am willing to help with this to the extent of my ability, but this is a closed process. I feel that it is a disservice to the distro as a whole to do one then apply patches to the other at some later date. Why not do both at the same time and release both simultaneously which means the testing of the RC's can be done by all.

To do "all at the same" time takes resources. I understand that the core Mint team is still relatively small at this time.


EDIT: tonyric agrees to martosurf's statement. I thought that was pretty clear, therefore initially I left the word "Agree" out. Now edited it back in since he feels misquoted.

So here goes his reply to martosurf:

Agree.
While it's true I'm waiting for the 64b version I know there's lot of people out there who still is using 32 bit systems.

... and my comment to both statements:
It will be increasing hard to run KDE-4.x on old systems. It just uses a lot of power. Newer systems should nearly all be 64-bit capable.
So the request to do KDE64 before KDE32 is very reasonable.
The java/javaws as well as flash playing issues on 64-bit are more or less resolved.


I suppose the little poll (64b vs. 32b) only refers to Mint-KDE (not Mint in general) ...
...since these arguments (demanding resources) of course do not apply to the lightweight Desktop environments xfce and fluxbox - which give owners of older hardware a shot at modern Mint beauty and functionality.
Therefore these D.E. still need to be 32-bit for quite some time (and be released 32-bit first). That's an issue. So Mint in a way cannot transition completely to 64-bit.


Peace.

[tonyric]

olligod, you got "my" quote wrong:

First? Well, I voted 64bit as I will not use a 32bit distro. But, in reality, I feel that the changes applied to one should be done at the same time. I am willing to help with this to the extent of my ability, but this is a closed process. I feel that it is a disservice to the distro as a whole to do one then apply patches to the other at some later date. Why not do both at the same time and release both simultaneously which means the testing of the RC's can be done by all.

Agree.

While it's true I'm waiting for the 64b version I know there's lot of people out there who still is using 32 bit systems.

[martosurf]

olligod, you got "my" quote wrong:

First? Well, I voted 64bit as I will not use a 32bit distro. But, in reality, I feel that the changes applied to one should be done at the same time. I am willing to help with this to the extent of my ability, but this is a closed process. I feel that it is a disservice to the distro as a whole to do one then apply patches to the other at some later date. Why not do both at the same time and release both simultaneously which means the testing of the RC's can be done by all.

Agree.

While it's true I'm waiting for the 64b version I know there's lot of people out there who still is using 32 bit systems.

What you want to say? I'm sorry but don't catch it tony.

[tonyric]

What you want to say? I'm sorry but don't catch it tony.

If both are done simultaneously then the team loses no potential testers. There are some of us that refuse to use a 32bit OS on our hardware. Therefore, the testing of the 32bit distro means I cannot aid in the testing, and they lose a 15 year experienced Linux engineer in the testing phase. I am sure that I am not the only person they lose by working the testing phase in this manner.