[ALUG] 32 versus 64 bit

Chris G cl at isbd.net
Mon Nov 17 09:53:05 GMT 2008


On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:35:05AM +0000, Peter Alcibiades wrote:
> Tim wondered:  would you recommend upgrading to a 64bit environment?
> 
> Definitely not.  In fact, the solution to my own problems might be to do a 
> clean install of a 32 bit environment.  Its just not worth the aggravation.  
> Maybe if you need to be able to address more memory.  Or if you don't install 
> all kinds of odd things that are 32 bit only - something which has given me 
> untold grief.  There don't seem to be any gains, and there is lots of 
> aggravation.
> 
> I have narrowed down the FF .xsession-errors issue a bit further, it seems to 
> have something to do with the user, and to be not just with FF.   I created 
> another user, started up FF, exercised it a bit, and the errors file was 
> empty.
> 
> So another and less drastic action than doing a new clean install might be to 
> create a new user and move all the files over.  But equally, maybe the thing 
> to do is just get it over with and move to 32 bit.
> 
I have two systems with 64-bit installations on them. I went for 64-bit
because both have significantly more than 4Gb or memory, one has 6Gb
and the other has 8Gb. The major reason for wanting lots of memory is
that I run Vmware (soon to be VirtualBox) to host Windows XP for a few
remaining 'legacy' things that I need Windows for.

The older system has Fedora 8 and there 64-bit was a bit of hassle but
not huge.  To overcome the most inconvenient things (for me) I installed
and used 32-bit Firefox on that system, it uses a fair amount of disk
space for all the extra libraries but that's about all, 32-bit
compatibility mode on a 64-bit system is very transparent.

The newer system (set to replace the old one) is xubuntu 64-bit and,
so far, has been just about hassle free. The fan's noisier though!  :-)

-- 
Chris Green




More information about the main mailing list