SEARCH

Enter your search query in the box above ^, or use the forum search tool.

You are not logged in.

#1 2012-10-14 15:57:34

schwim
#! Die Hard
From: Interweb's #1 Devotee
Registered: 2012-10-11
Posts: 604

32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

Hi there everyone!

I tried installing a 64 bit linux OS quite a while ago but did not stick with it because it seemed initially that apps weren't quite ready for the new architecture.  I'm ready to revisit the issue and would like some help on figuring out if it's something I need to bother with yet.

On the plus side, I read and hear that it's faster than it's 32 bit counterpart when running the same apps.  I also read however that it uses more memory to run the same things as well so I'm confused as to which way to go.

These guys seem to think that if I have 2gb of memory and a processor capable of running it, I should be on 64 bit.  That seems like a bit of an over-generalization to me, but might be wrong with that.

The computer that will be receiving the new OS has the following specs:

Processor: AMD V Series processor V120 (512 KB L2 cache, 2.20 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB, 25 W)
Memory: 2 GB of DDR3 1066 MHz memory minus video allocation
Video: ATI Radeon™ HD 4250 Graphics with 256 MB of dedicated system memory

Could I ask your thoughts on whether I should be installing 64 bit Waldorf on this machine?  Your thoughts on it would be greatly appreciated!

Offline

Be excellent to each other!

#2 2012-10-14 16:07:31

el_koraco
#!/loony/bun
From: inside Ed
Registered: 2011-07-25
Posts: 4,749

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

I used to have a laptop with the same exact specs. 64 bit ran much smoother on it.

Last edited by el_koraco (2012-10-14 16:07:47)

Offline

#3 2012-10-14 16:42:04

VastOne
#! Ranger
From: #! Fringe Division
Registered: 2011-04-26
Posts: 10,163
Website

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

Simple, if you have 64 bit, you should run 64 bit.

8 years on hundreds of machines, all 64 bit and never an issue.


VSIDO | SolusOS

Words That Build Or Destroy

Offline

#4 2012-10-14 20:32:00

joek
#! Junkie
Registered: 2011-09-06
Posts: 497

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

Agree with VastOne and El_K. You might as well be running 64 bit.
The thing about 64-bit using more memory is that, with the amount you have, it doesn't matter. On 64 bit Waldorf, I have never seen my laptop use more than 1Gb of memory, and if you're frequently running things which require 2Gb memory, then the 50Mb or so more that 64 bit seems to use isn't going to help you. As long as you are not using all your memory and swapping, the amount you use doesn't affect performance.
(More detailed explanation of this can be found heree: https://kmandla.wordpress.com/2006/12/2 … le-secret/)

Offline

#5 2012-10-14 20:38:18

dura
Bloated Gimp
From: interzone
Registered: 2012-09-15
Posts: 2,106

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

Seems from your other posts that you're much more computer literate than myself, but I'd hadn't been able to get my preferred linux distributions running very well on my x121e's x64 architecture until waldorf x64.

Waldorf x64 is running amazingly fast; fastest I've ever used. Memory is always low, even though higher than when using 32bit. I'm always keen to reduce memory consumption, etc, but the same way, it's a waste just having that memory sitting there unused.

Offline

#6 2012-10-14 22:40:30

schwim
#! Die Hard
From: Interweb's #1 Devotee
Registered: 2012-10-11
Posts: 604

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the guidance.  I'm enjoying twice the bits, so it's kind of like twice the #!

Offline

#7 2012-10-15 15:17:23

corenominal
WRONG
From: Lincoln, UK
Registered: 2008-11-20
Posts: 5,057
Website

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

schwim wrote:

These guys seem to think that if I have 2gb of memory and a processor capable of running it, I should be on 64 bit.  That seems like a bit of an over-generalization to me, but might be wrong with that.

^ is the general rule of thumb that I work with. smile

Offline

#8 2012-10-28 19:40:52

elb0wf4ce
Member
From: England, UK
Registered: 2011-10-10
Posts: 15

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

Well, I've had numerous issues running 64-bit disros; emulator issues, flash, java, certain apps and games. The benchmarks don't really compare normal desktop usage, they merely show that encoding/decoding and working with huge files is faster in a 64-bit OS – but there's no boost to web surfing and 3D gaming performance. I mostly browse the web, listen to music and play games, so 32-bit is just fine.


If it ain't broke, try harder.

Offline

#9 2012-10-28 19:46:28

mynis01
#! Die Hard
From: 127.0.0.1
Registered: 2010-07-02
Posts: 1,963

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

Some stuff doesn't work as smoothly on 64 bit unfortunately, like flashplugin output to a pulseaudio server. There are however, in all likelihood, probably patches to fix whatever issues if any you might run into. Also, you're probably only going to have these issues with poorly maintained software like flash. I run 32 bit on my laptop just for the simplicity. If I had more than 3 GB of memory I would switch to 64 bit though.

Offline

#10 2012-10-28 21:12:53

CBizgreat!
#! Die Hard
Registered: 2011-07-27
Posts: 1,505

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

Going with my new partyline ... Dual boot the suckers, try it ... What do you think or prefer ? Kinda in the same fix myself. Prelim research ( who da heel knows apparently ?) AS USUAL ... Some saying this, some saying that, .. Most saying marginal, shrugs.

Finally went ahead and upgraded to a beast of a pc ... At least compared to what I've grown accustomed to. Guessing will have to look and see ... for meself. Sounds like you're enjoying nix 64bit though. Jmo ... when enjoying all this kickbutt gnu/nixy goodness doesn't matter. You're still better off than 90+% of pc users regardless. wink

Am leaning towards 32bit myself atm. Just a general impression and am sure will get around to testing both side-by-side anyway.


Flashplayer is supposed to be a dying thing anyway. THANK GAWD !!! wink Long since wanted to see it croak n be replaced by summin new/better, shrugs.

Last edited by CBizgreat! (2012-10-28 21:41:36)


Some common cbiz abbreviations. This will save me time and yet @ same time tell folks what the babble is supposed to mean.

Vll ! = ( Viva la gnu/Linux !)    Vl#!! = ( Viva la #! !)    Last but not least, UD ... OD ! = ( Use Debian ... or die !) tongue

Offline

#11 2012-10-28 21:22:53

pvsage
Internal Affairs
From: North Carolina
Registered: 2009-10-18
Posts: 12,286

Re: 32 bit vs. 64 (not in theory, but for me in particular)

Only program I've had occasion to use that didn't work at all on 64-bit was Floola; now that my iPod is Rockboxed, that program is no longer relevant to me, and I'm compfrtable staying with 64-bit on my desktop.


I'm a moderator here.  How are we doing?  Feedback is encouraged.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

Copyright © 2012 CrunchBang Linux.
Proudly powered by Debian. Hosted by Linode.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Debian Logo