32 Bit vs 64 Bit

[linuxviolin]

I've run 64 bit and 32 bit versions of mint and find the 64 bit version is peppier...true, not all programs are in 64 bit, but i have NEVER seen any less performance as a result ONLY BETTER OVERALL... i think one is foolish these days running 32 bits since all modern computers run 64 bits for some years now...what those articles said are old and were much more true then, but are no longer true in 2011...

Even windows is 64 bit now

And what? The great majority of "average" users has no real need for 64 bit. As already noted, you *really* need 64 bit just in some cases. And about the gain of performance, well, it is often quite small. E.g. one guy said: "I make this in 13 sec versus 17 sec in 32 bit" or another: "wow, 3 min versus 7 min in 32 bit" etc What a gain! Puff, I don't care of that and I have no problem to wait for some supplementary sec or even minutes for my work be done. The race to the rapidity and power is useless and stupid. No, we are NOT "foolish these days running 32 bits", even on 64 bit capable hardware... Not for me, at least.

[craig10x]

Ah...the linux mint forums "resident pessimist" is "in the house"

Seriously though, i have used both and still find 64 bits to have an "edge" in many situations...my personal experience

[linuxviolin]

Ah...the linux mint forums "resident pessimist" is "in the house"

Well, I gave my opinion... "resident pessimist"? Or objective and/or realistic also maybe...

[rivenathos]

With my current hardware, I can tell a big difference in video playback in 64-bit versus 32-bit. Therefore, I am running 64-bit even though I only have 2 GB of RAM. Am I expecting miracles from 64-bit? No. However, flawless video playback of my movies and TV shows, as well as excellent streaming online solidly entrench me in the 64-bit camp. My hardware decided for me.

[gn2]

E.g. one guy said: "I make this in 13 sec versus 17 sec in 32 bit" or another: "wow, 3 min versus 7 min in 32 bit" etc What a gain! Puff, I don't care of that and I have no problem to wait for some supplementary sec or even minutes for my work be done.

But those seconds and minutes have a nasty habit of adding up and before you know it you're looking at hours and days....
The fact that you don't need the performance advantage doesn't mean that everyone doesn't.

[AlbertP]

On my laptop, Google Earth ran fine on 64-bit (nvidia official driver) but on 32-bit it stuttered a bit. But that's perhaps because I am now comparing 64-bit Mint with 32-bit Fedora (both were 2.6.35 kernel, however).

[linuxviolin]

But those seconds and minutes have a nasty habit of adding up and before you know it you're looking at hours and days....

Hmm, if you say, but days? You are exaggerating a bit here, you don't think? Just a little, at least...

[MALsPa]

The fact that you don't need the performance advantage doesn't mean that everyone doesn't.

One can actually look at the wording of that sentence in two ways!

But the fact that linuxviolin doesn't need the performance advantage does prove that not everyone needs it. I don't need it, either, so I still run 32 bit on 64 bit machines.

[Racoffey]

I'm running 64 bit Mint for one reason and one reason only. Because I can. 64 bit processor = 64 bit OS. I may never do anything that will require the 64 bit version, but if I do, it's already installed. and If I don't, it won't make much of a difference.

[craig10x]

I'm running 64 bit Mint for one reason and one reason only. Because I can. 64 bit processor = 64 bit OS. I may never do anything that will require the 64 bit version, but if I do, it's already installed. and If I don't, it won't make much of a difference.

Exactly right..i've never really seen any DRAWBACK in using it on my system and for my needs...so why not use it? Why not take full advantage of what my laptop is providing me? And i think that i have observed that it works better then 32 bits on some aspects of my system....so what the heck

[MALsPa]

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.

I guess "certain tasks" is the key phrase there. I figure it wouldn't make much difference in my case, but perhaps it depends on what a person does with their computer. But both of my machines have only 2 GB RAM, and I don't do video editing or anything like that, so I'm fine with 32 bit.

[MALsPa]

Exactly right..i've never really seen any DRAWBACK in using it on my system and for my needs...so why not use it?

That's a good point. On the other hand, if a person's perfectly happy running 32 bit on 64 bit hardware... why not continue doing so? Whatever works.

If you pay to buy a motherboard, CPU, graphics card and memory that all support 64 bits operations--and you then run a 32 bits operating system on it--well, I'd say you are a thief of your own pocket at the least.

Yeah, you're probably right!

[deleted]

If you want to execute 64 bit code, then you have to have a 64 bit kernel. 64 bit kernels will also execute 32 bit code.
32 bit kernels (even PAE) will only execute 32 bit code.

To muddy the waters, tho, you can run 64 bit guest OS's on a 32 bit PAE processor running VMPlayer (I assume you can with Virtual Box, too)
-Hinto

[AlbertP]

I've never gotten 64-bit Linux in Virtualbox working right, however. And that was using 64-bit Linux as host OS.

[xenopeek]

I've never gotten 64-bit Linux in Virtualbox working right, however. And that was using 64-bit Linux as host OS.

Strange, is this perhaps with AMD CPU? On my Intel 64 bits CPU I run Linux Mint 11 64 bits, and using VirtualBox daily with multiple 64 bits and 32 bits distros without any problems or glitches.

[AlbertP]

Intel Core 2 Duo CPU.

But I don't care about it. I don't really need Virtualbox.

[deleted]

@AlbertP
Never had a problem with either VB or VMPlayer running a 64 bit OS (on linux or windows), out of the box.
My personal choice is VMPlayer, but I won't de-rail the thread.

I was making the point that while PAE won't run 64-bit code, it will run VB or VMPlayer (32-bit) where you can configure a 64-bit guest OS in it.
-H

[gn2]

I guess "certain tasks" is the key phrase there.

It certainly is.
When the "certain task" takes 90 minutes on a 32 OS and 50 minutes on a 64 OS you only need to do the "certain task" 36 times to save a whole day.....

[linuxviolin]

I'm running 64 bit Mint for one reason and one reason only. Because I can.

Of course you can, nobody says the contrary, I guess, but you MUST NOT necessarily, except if you really need 64 bit.

64 bit processor = 64 bit OS.

Not really, maybe yes maybe no. 32 bit works perfectly, even on 64 bit hardware and for all tasks, although for some you'll have to wait more time for your work be done. In fact, probably the majority of the (simple) "average" home users has not a *really* need for 64 bit. The race to the power, frantic shopping etc is a race for consumption organized by enterprises which wants you buying their products and which make you think/believe you need them etc. And this in all areas. Well, this is our stupid society.

If you make some works for which really you need 64 bit, go with it. If not, well, think and choose for yourself, knowing 32 is quite fine, good and solid. (not always the case with 64 bit sometimes...)

i've never really seen any DRAWBACK in using it on my system and for my needs...so why not use it?

Who talks about "drawback"? It can have drawbacks maybe, sometimes, but this is not the purpose here.

so why not use it? Why not take full advantage of what my laptop is providing me?

Well, no problem. Use what you want. I guess nobody here will have some problem with that... But have you *really* a need for 64 bit? You *really* use your 64 bit system completely? If yes, good, if no, well, it is really *necessary* to use something you don't need just because you have been "forced" (I hope you see what I mean) to buy a such hardware? As I said above, this is our stupid society.

If you pay to buy a motherboard, CPU, graphics card and memory that all support 64 bits operations--and you then run a 32 bits operating system on it--well, I'd say you are a thief of your own pocket at the least.

Well, first, as already said, have you really a need for 64 bit? If no, then you could just throwing money out the window, or maybe you have a lot of money and you are ready, you can, to buy something you don't need and/or the last toy in town... Happy man! Can you give me some please?

When the "certain task" takes 90 minutes on a 32 OS and 50 minutes on a 64 OS

I don't guess the majority of the simple average home users make some work, a "certain task", like that... at least, probably very infrequently.

But again, the purpose here is not to denigrate or like 64 bit. If you need 64 bit, good, buy and use 64 bit. If no, well, think and choose yourself...

P.S.= I don't talk here about professional users neither about some "power" users who can have a need for 64 bit to make their work more comfortably, yes...

[xenopeek]

64 bit processor = 64 bit OS.

Not really, maybe yes maybe no. 32 bit works perfectly, even on 64 bit hardware and for all tasks, although for some you'll have to wait more time for your work be done. In fact, probably the majority of the (simple) "average" home users has not a *really* need for 64 bit. The race to the power, frantic shopping etc is a race for consumption organized by enterprises which wants you buying their products and which make you think/believe you need them etc. And this in all areas. Well, this is our stupid society.

It is called innovation, progress or at least technical advancement. You would have been one of these guys, back when we all still lived in caves and fought saber tooth tigers, to tell people not make a fuss about this new "fire" thing. There was no real need for it, just chew your raw food very good and make sure to have a few extra pelts to keep you warm at night (oh, and watch out for the mountain lions--hopefully we'll have a full moon tonight to see 'em). Why should we buy into this "fire" thing, as we have lived so long happily without it

But seriously, if you want to use 32 bits on 64 bits, go right ahead

so why not use it? Why not take full advantage of what my laptop is providing me?

Well, no problem. Use what you want. I guess nobody here will have some problem with that... But have you *really* a need for 64 bit? You *really* use your 64 bit system completely? If yes, good, if no, well, it is really *necessary* to use something you don't need just because you have been "forced" (I hope you see what I mean) to buy a such hardware? As I said above, this is our stupid society.

Running a 32 bits OS on 64 bits hardware limits the options you have; so you may not be using them because you don't have the option. I daily use my 64 bits system fully, and wouldn't be able to do the same thing on 32 bits. This is due to per-process limit of 3 GB on 32 bits (even with PAE). I'm happy to be able to use more with virtual machines for example.

If you pay to buy a motherboard, CPU, graphics card and memory that all support 64 bits operations--and you then run a 32 bits operating system on it--well, I'd say you are a thief of your own pocket at the least.

Well, first, as already said, have you really a need for 64 bit? If no, then you could just throwing money out the window, or maybe you have a lot of money and you are ready, you can, to buy something you don't need and/or the last toy in town... Happy man! Can you give me some please?

Yes, I need 64 bits (not like I need air to breath, but I've grown to use the options it gives me). And I don't need the last toy in town; I usually upgrade just parts of my system to keep cost down. I was just saying, why buy a 64 bits processor if you aren't going to use it? Then stick to second hand 32 bit processors and systems, which you can get for cheap.

When the "certain task" takes 90 minutes on a 32 OS and 50 minutes on a 64 OS

I don't guess the majority of the simple average home users make some work, a "certain task", like that... at least, probably very infrequently.

I'm not considering "the simple average home users", they runs Windows. Why do we always have to bring things down to the level of people who don't care either way?

And I'd like an example of 90 minutes vs 50 minutes also All the tests I know show just 10-15% improvement as what you can expect from CPU heavy applications.