32 or 64??

[Karl F. Larsen]

Chris Jones wrote:
>> That sounds like the voice of youth. I clearly have experience with 64
>> bit code, and that experience tells me that it was not ready when I
>> tested it. Other experience tells me that there is no defining line
>> between "this technology is not yet ready" and "now it is", so even if
>> my experience is one year out of date, it is at a maximum at the
>> trailing end of valid.
> 
> The problem with this analysis is it assumes a constant smooth degradation of the 'validity' of your knowledge with time. A year ago the 64 bit flash plugin did not (I think..) exist so I would have agreed with you that *if* flash was important to you, to go maybe 32 bit. However, that advice immediately between suspect the moment the 64 bit plugin was released, and over time, as the 64 bit plugin has proved to be as reliable as the 32 bit one (IMO), is now completely out of date. In this case year old experience really is too old to really comment.
> 
> Chris


	And you assume your computer had 4GB of ram and a proper CPU. 
Well I have a proper CPU and 1 GB of ram. So I will buy 2 more 
GB in one package and try 3 GB with 64 bit.

	Then when Ubuntu 10.4 shows up it's time for 64 bit 
experiments. I hope it is a good experiance.

73 Karl


-- 

	Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
	Linux User
	#450462   http://counter.li.org.
         Key ID = 3951B48D