----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Stubbs" <philip@???>
To: "Hampshire LUG Discussion List" <hampshire@???>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Hampshire] 64 bit v 32 bit on Ubuntu
>* Rob Malpass (rob@???) wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> Am I right in saying that a 64 bit processor can run in 32 bit mode? I
>> have a Semrpon 3000+ which seems to run both Ubuntu 32-bit and 64-bit
>> (from live CD). I have a stable 32-bit installation on its hdd - but if
>> I'm only using half of its power, I'll gladly install the 64-bit version.
>
> Its been a while since I have played with 64bit on my machine, so
> this may be a bit out of date. What I found was that I did not
> notice any real difference in the 'power' of the machine over 32bit
> for what I was doing. I suspect that you will not see a 'doubling'
> of its performance if you were to install the 64bit OS.
>
> What I did find was that not all 32bit software was available in a
> 64bit version. No doubt this has improved but I know that there are
> still some (proprietary) bits that are still not available on a 64bit
> system without jumping through some loops.
>
> In the end I decided to stick with 32bits. It is probably about time
> that I investigated again, but until I decide I want to do some 3d
> Rendering, I don't think I will bother.
>
> --
> Philip Stubbs
> http://www.stuphi.co.uk
>
Having played with it for 3 hours or so, I'm inclined to agree. The 32-bit
version worked fine in lots of ways. Thus far, the 64-bit has
* failed to allow me to change network configurations
* reported errors during shutdown
* continues to fail to recognise my 2nd hard disk
* comes supplied without any obvious disk manager / partition editor.
I'm pretty sure these things worked fine on the 32-bit version - but I'll
continue to hack away - see what happens. These aren't criticisms - just
observations - ubuntu continues to be the best distro I've played with.
Is it faster than 32-bit? Marginally. Thus far - it's not worth the
hassle.
Cheers
Rob
