[ubuntu-us-ut] 64-bit vs 32-bit (Was: Re: 10.04 CD shipment ordered)

[Aaron Toponce]

On 4/7/2010 6:24 PM, Christian Horne wrote:
> as for whether 64 or 32 is faster on a 64 proc, i'd say that yes, 64
> is faster, but not quite enough to warrant picking up and moving to 64
> if you've already set up with 32; and i know a lot of people who are
> pretty ... "encamped" in 32, who will be using dist-upgrade to get to
> 10.04, and who don't give a crap about the last little bit of speed
> (i'm talking about techies here).

Sure. If you're happy in 32-bit land on 64-bit hardware, then all the
more power to you.

The whole point of my forking this thread, was arguing the case that
Canonical should be producing 64-bit pressed CDs, and why 64-bit is
superior to 32-bit on 64-bit hardware.

The LoCo team lead should be able to order what they think would be
appropriate for their team, 32-bit, 64-bit, KDE, server, etc. This WAS
the case in the past. However, because Canonical is no longer interested
in producing 64-bit pressed CDs, it will get less exposure, and 32-bit
will carry on, like it has the past two decades, and general computing
will be the worse, because of it.

Sure, I can go to my local Ubuntu mirror, and download the 64-bit ISO,
and install from there. I'm arguing that the general public could be
running 64-bit, likely without knowing it, and we could push computer
science to new heights due to its exposure.

But, then again, the Linux desktop has less than 2% market share, so the
point is probably mute anyway.

-- 
. O .   O . O   . . O   O . .   . O .
. . O   . O O   O . O   . O O   . . O
O O O   . O .   . O O   O O .   O O O

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-us-ut/attachments/20100407/8c665a21/attachment.pgp