32-bit vs 64-bit (was: InetBoot for "Fedora/Ubuntu/KNOPPIX/VMKnoppix" is released.)
timfrost at xtra.co.nz
Wed Jul 2 09:34:34 UTC 2008
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 15:28 +0100, (``-_-´´) -- Fernando wrote:
> One more question: i just found out that there are no 64 bits
> packages... will there ever be? with a system with 4GiBs of RAM like
> mine, I can only see 3GiBs.
For Intel/AMD systems, there are two options:
32-bit, using the I386 ISO/CD/...
64-bit, using the AMD64 ISO/CD/...
Despite having AMD in the name, the 64-bit packages will install on
64-bit Intel processors, as well as the AMD Athlon family.
Bear in mind that there are packages which are only available in 32-bit
versions. In particular, there are a number of web browser plugins
which are only available for 32-bit Linux. For this reason, many linux
users are installing the 32-bit distribution on desktop systems, even
though those systems would be quite capable of running a 64-bit linux
I am in that category at home, because I access various sites that offer
java/flash/adobe content, and I know that these (particularly Java) are
not (or not fully) supported on a 64-bit platform. I am not affected by
the memory restraints, because the motherboard on my PC supports a
maximum of 3 GB.
At work, I have chosen 64-bit Ubuntu for my desktop, because my new PC
is a 4-core, 64-bit CPU with 4GB RAM. So far, I have not found anything
that justifies switching back to 32-bit, although I do have to remember
the restriction for one environment - our VPN servers are managed via a
web interface. These systems offer 'manage from laptop' or 'manage
server', and the latter uses a java interface that won't work because
there is not a java plugin for browsers on 64-bit Linux. I am able to
use the 'manage from laptop' option in that situation, as that doesn't
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss