[ubuntu-uk] 64-bit or 32-bit, Was BBC Iplayer download on Linux

Rob Beard rob at esdelle.co.uk
Sun Dec 21 12:39:33 GMT 2008


Alan Pope wrote:
> 2008/12/21 David King <linuxman at avoura.com>:
>> I do not see why more people do not use 64-bit operating systems. The
>> CPUs on all new PCs are now 64-bit, so why not have 64-bit OS?
> 
> Because (on my laptop) there's zero benefit to running 64-bit version
> of the OS and there are some gotchas with a few things either not
> working or requiring enough faff to get working that it's
> annoying/frustrating/timeconsuming to do it. I ran 64-bit Ubuntu for 6
> months and now have reverted back to 32-bit.
> 
> My laptop has 4GB of RAM but there's a flaw in that it will only show
> 3.3GB to the OS, whether it's 64-bit or 32-bit.
> 
> Cheers,
> Al.
> 

Hmmm, I guess 700MB less memory isn't going to make that much difference 
considering what I'll be running anyway.  On the desktop I don't mind 
putting up with the quirks but I think on a laptop since I'll be 
providing remote support at the most annoying of times (usually either 
early in the morning i.e. 5am or late at night) then I think I'll go for 
the 32-bit version for now.

I presume like everything once the bugs are ironed out then thinks like 
64-bit Flash and Java will make their way into the next release (or the 
release after that).

I did quickly fire up an AMD64 Live CD and I was so impressed that 
everything just worked.  Can't say that for Vista, spent best part of 3 
hours last night downloading and installing drivers (the Intel driver 
ACER provided was about 180MB!!!).  All that hassle just to remove the 
crudware that was slowing it down.  Curse you Microsoft with your 
restricted downgrade to XP rights.

Rob




More information about the ubuntu-uk mailing list