14
Jan
08

Ubuntu 7.10(Gutsy Gibbon) 64-bit or 32-bit ?

The Dell XPS M1330 comes with a Intel Core 2 Duo Processor. That means that I can install Ubuntu 64-bit on it. Question is: should I?

For the past one week I have been using Ubuntu 64-bit. Though 64-bit is supposed to perform better when it comes to compiling / encoding I don’t find that much of use for it. I don’t compile/encode that often and waiting a few minutes extra then is not a big deal. On the other hand almost all 32-bit applications are supported by 64-bit Ubuntu. So should I stick with it?

Ubuntu does not detect the internal microphone properly by default and a patch has been released. Unfortunately, not for 64-bit. I have tried to compile from source instead which didn’t help me a lot. Other than this I find no other particular issue. Applications that only run with 32-bit can easily be used on Ubuntu 64-bit using getlibs (That’s how I got Skype to work. My guess is that it will work for other 32-bit Applications). Another observation: most solutions in forums are for 32-bit Ubuntu. So if you try the workaround/fix and don’t get similar results chances are that you need to explicitly ask for more detailed help (Don’t worry – the forums are helpful enough to answer to most queries).

As for me, I am going to install Ubuntu 32-bit, unless a microphone solution with proper instructions pops up anytime soon. Let’s see how that goes and then we will see. Who knows in the future I might shift back to 64-bit?

Tip: If you are planning on reinstalling Ubuntu multiple times, keep your home partition on a separate partition.

Edit :

After having installed the 32-bit Version, I realized that it doesn’t have some of the issues that 64-bit Ubuntu has:

  1. The Live CD starts up in the normal mode. 64-bit Ubuntu had to be started in Safe Mode
  2. The Ubuntu Loading splash appears after installing. 64-bit Ubuntu didn’t show that splash. I had to manually fix it.

18 Responses to “Ubuntu 7.10(Gutsy Gibbon) 64-bit or 32-bit ?”


  1. January 14, 2008 at 16:44

    “I have tried to compile from source instead which didn’t help me a lot.” How is that different from installing from the CD?

    p.s. yeah dude. move to anything that supports a microphone. and we can do that thing that we want to do, with that other guy joining in also.

  2. January 14, 2008 at 16:51

    @Baph
    LOL, yeah.

    Well compiling from source mean you get just the source code and you compile it natively on your System. That means if it compiles successfully you generate binaries specifically meant for your architecture – in my case 64-bit.

    As for what you get from the CD or download of the net (*.deb) are pre compiled files. Just binaries. They just get placed in the right directories and additional script execute AFAIK.

  3. January 14, 2008 at 20:48

    @Presti..
    Psst ..it’s you

  4. January 15, 2008 at 00:07

    @Bap, Presti and Swen

    “we can do that thing that we want to do, with that other guy joining in also.”

    Something really fishy here. :| LOL. Hope you all had a nice threesome.

  5. January 15, 2008 at 03:10

    /home shud b seperate at anytime …

  6. January 15, 2008 at 07:11

    @Johnny
    /home ..did that now :)

    @Ruhi
    Oh my god. What gave you that idea?

  7. 8 bugtracker
    January 15, 2008 at 10:21

    I use 64bit ubuntu on my laptop and it gets very frustrating at times. Most of the browser plugins (including flash) haven’t released a version for 64bit platforms.

  8. January 15, 2008 at 11:40

    @Bugtracker

    yes it gets frustrating

  9. 10 Drew
    January 16, 2008 at 01:16

    If it’s not broken don’t fix it.

  10. January 16, 2008 at 04:25

    @Drew
    It is broken in some places, as I mentioned in the Edit

  11. January 17, 2008 at 10:35

    Mine is AMD 64bit dual core. I run 32bit just because of the simple reason that there aren’t enough 64apps (and support for them) yet.
    Well, you could have asked me before proceeding, you know. :P

  12. January 17, 2008 at 11:22

    @Bips
    AFAIK, almost all the apps run on 64 bit ? what main stream apps are you missing for 64 bit ?

  13. January 18, 2008 at 12:46

    Nobody yet mentioned the memory footprint: much much larger in 64bit version! I know it is not that much of an issue now when prices are not so high, but I really hate wasting so much space for empty bits of data.

  14. January 19, 2008 at 08:07

    @Swen:
    It’s not just about mainstream apps. I want everything that I see to run on m system.
    I am not sure about the current time, but there were a number of packages in Oct-Dec. 2006 which either had a buggy port, or didn’t have proper support (mailing lists, forums etc.).

  15. January 20, 2008 at 07:44

    @jablan
    I didn’t even think of this

    @bips
    you are right about lack of support. most queries/solutions focus on 32 bit.

  16. January 20, 2008 at 07:51

    i know that most of the 64 bit version of apps are not tested .. :( bad state …

  17. January 20, 2008 at 11:23

    i know that most of the 64 bit version of apps are not tested .. :( bad state

    @Swen:
    Why not keep a small partition of a 64bit OS for testing purpose?
    That’d be great way to contribute, you know :)


Leave a Reply




Blog Stats

  • 34,415 pings

Pages

 

January 2008
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031