To go 64 or not to go, that is the question

[Craig Hagerman]

What is the computer going to be used for? That is the biggest
consideration when thinking about whether to go with 64 Bit or not. If
you are running a workstation it would probably be worth it. If  you
are running a home media center it would be easier to use 32 bit and
you wouldn't really give up any performance anyway? If you want to
access more memory than 32 bit will allow, you need 64 bit. And so on.
People with 64 bit use a chroot to run 32 bit apps, but I always found
it a kludge (maybe that is me and not the state of the system!) and
there was always some things that didn't work correctly. I recently
switched from 64 bit debian to 32 bit Ubuntu since it made more sense
for my media-centered computing needs.



On 9/10/06, Simon Skogh <simon at swedishdrunkard.com> wrote:
> I got a new rig in the works, and it'll be running an AMD Athlon 64 and
> I was curious about the state of Ubuntu 64-bit. After doing a quick
> Google search, I was handed many a forum-post asking for help on
> problems, but most of these dated back to 2005 and was about Hoary or
> Breezy.
>
> So what's the "current" state of the 64 bit distro, are people still
> having problems with Java and Flash (i.e. more so than would a 32-bit
> user)? Is it just as nice and stable as "regular" Dapper?
>
> I'd definitely prefer running the 64-bit version, but if there's alot of
> problems with it still, I'll just stick to the old one.
>
> Thanks in advance for any and all input!
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>