[GRLUG] 64bit Linux

[Collin]

>
> Nope not because I could. I did it as a first choice. I've been using
> 32-bit for years.
>
> I saw some significant improvements in the way things were going. I just
> installed it and had a few things go bad, mainly due to the fact it is
> such a new chipset...
>
> I have 4GB of RAM, as well. Everything works just fine. I have lots of
> sutff running sometimes, I see no degradation during these intensive
> times.
>
> I see no reason *NOT* to use 64-bit, its long term, the 32-bit
> abstraction is well defined and I feel qualified enough to say 32-bit is
> done and all machine I get from now on are going to be 64-bit and run
> 64-bit OS and 32-bit abstraction for things like Flash/Java/whatever.
>   

Just to resurrect this slightly old topic. I went for broke and 
installed a x86_64 version of linux onto my new laptop. Previously just 
a day or two before that I had installed the 32 bit version of the same 
distro. I use Arch linux.

My experience has been that the 64 bit version of Arch runs just as well 
if not better than the 32 bit version. It has almost the same amount of 
software, all of which is natively compiled for 64 bit. The x86_64 
philosophy over at Arch is that if you are going to go 64 bit you may as 
well do it all the way and not use 32 anywhere it isn't necessary. In my 
case the only necessary place was for installing Flash since it has no 
64 bit version. The only problem I am having currently is that the sound 
card (Intel HD Audio) is only partially supported it seems and I get no 
sound just yet.  But Compiz-Fusion works very well. Who doesn't need 
raindrops while you are working. ;-)

So now that I've bit the bullet I have to second the motion that linux 
64bit is indeed ready for prime time.