which ubuntu

[deepak]

I have found the 64bit version to be significantly and noticeably faster.

My rig:
Opteron 165 on ASUS A8NE-SLI Deluxe, 2 GB RAM, NVIDIA 7300 GT

Scott (angrykeyboarder) wrote:
> Markus Schönhaber spake thusly on 212003864 ::
>   
>> Darryl LeCount schrieb:
>>
>>     
>>> There is no specific Intel 64-bit version - the generic 64-bit version
>>> is the AMD64 version. However, if you're planning on easily using Flash
>>> or WINE then I would recommend you stick with the 32-bit version.
>>>       
>> Using nspluginwrapper one can get flash working on AMD64 quite easily.
>> Moreover, there's the option to use a 32-bit browser.
>>
>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/Flash#amd64andppc
>>     
>
>
> I've got a 64-bit CPU and ran 64-bit Linux for a while. I got tired of
> all the hoops you had to jump through to get stuff working, when it
> "just worked" (by comparison) in 32-bit.
>
> Then there is the problem of packages that only come in 32-bit versions,
> period (no, I'm not talking about Flash - Sun's web browser plugin for
> Java is another as well - but I'm not referring to it either). There are
> a number of programs out there that are 32-bit only.  This is software
> you don't find in the official Ubuntu repositories.
>
> I got tired of it and went back to 32-bit and I've not noticed one bit
> of difference performance wise.  But then, I've only got 2GB of RAM and
> you need 4 or more for there to be any noticeable difference with a
> 64-bit vs. 32-bit CPU.
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20070725/6fe3fb9a/attachment.html>