Ubuntu 64-bit

O

othellomcbane

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
83
When Ubuntu 9.04 is released next month, I'll be installing it on my desktop with 4 gb of RAM (dual booting with Windows 7 64-bit). Since Linux doesn't pre-cache things natively like Windows does, and I never have enough programs open to actually use all that RAM at once, I'm wondering if I should go 64-bit or just sacrifice the extra 512 RAM and stick with the security of 32 bit. I have no idea if 64 Linux adds any complications—is it going to make any programs or themes more difficult to install, or add another step or two in my transitioning to the magical world of Linux? Will I even notice?

As a follow-up, is there any way to make Linux use the extra RAM other than the preload daemon? I already tried the Alpha 6 of Jaunty Jackalope on my laptop (just 32-bit though) with the ext4 filesystem, and it seemed to break preload, or not allow it to run at all, I'm not sure. I don't know if that was just because I was running an alpha or a new filesystem or if I was just unlucky, but at this point I'm not counting on having precaching to use my extra RAM.

Thanks.
 
I've been using preload for quite some time on my machine (8.10 x64, 8GB RAM) and it works beautifully...I also installed 9.04 Alpha 5 with ext4 for the main disk, and it seemed to be fine.

To be honest, the only problem I've come across so far with 64-bit Ubuntu is the lack of a decent Flash player, but I've been running the Flash 10 Alpha for a while and it's fine. In fact, the only things it won't run are a few crappy Facebook apps, which I can probably find a way to live without.
 
That's reassuring. I avoid Facebook as much as I can anyway, so no loss there. I didn't even think about the flash issue, but as long as Hulu and Youtube still work I should be good. Maybe I just had bad luck trying to install preload before. I installed it with sudo apt-get and it said it was installed, so I'm not sure how I could have messed that up.
 
You were using an alpha - there are no guarantees, my friend ;)

The installation process for the Flash alpha (here) is simple enough - just unpack it in ~/.mozilla/plugins/ directory and restart Firefox.
 
Preload is an abandoned app no longer under development. I wouldn't even bother with it.
 
dkev said:
Preload is an abandoned app no longer under development. I wouldn't even bother with it.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything? It works fine....

EDIT: Last update on the project's SourceForge page says that it was last updated 4 months ago, so I'd hardly call it an abandoned project.
 
Odd. Why would they abandon it? I don't understand why it isn't even a built-in feature. Isn't that giving Windows a big speed advantage over Linux?
 
othellomcbane said:
Odd. Why would they abandon it? I don't understand why it isn't even a built-in feature. Isn't that giving Windows a big speed advantage over Linux?
Click to expand...

It's the nature of Open Source. A Linux based distribution is made up of thousands of individual libraries, services, applications, etc that come from thousands of different sources and sometimes a project maintainer loses interest or finds himself without enough time to continue and if nobody else is working on it, then that's it. Thus a project becomes abandoned, or at least severely neglected. There's no corporate structure, no paychecks, so people work on what they want to work on, at their own pace. Sourceforge is full of abandoned projects, some because there's no developers, others because there's no users.
 
Is preload really that big of a deal? I guess I never close my open programs anyway though :p
 
alan2308 said:
It's the nature of Open Source. A Linux based distribution is made up of thousands of individual libraries, services, applications, etc that come from thousands of different sources and sometimes a project maintainer loses interest or finds himself without enough time to continue and if nobody else is working on it, then that's it. Thus a project becomes abandoned, or at least severely neglected. There's no corporate structure, no paychecks, so people work on what they want to work on, at their own pace. Sourceforge is full of abandoned projects, some because there's no developers, others because there's no users.
Click to expand...

No users means no demand. If there is sufficient demand for a product, then in all likelihood the project will change ownership and continue. That's actually exactly what makes open source so much better than the alternative - if the company that you paid to support your program goes belly-up, then you're SOL. The project is dead forever, and unless they release the code into the wild, then bugfixes and updates will never be seen again.
 
I guess it's not a big deal if you're the kind of person who leaves your computer on all the time. I shut my desktop down every night and while I'm at work, so that's really only a few hours an evening I'm using it. My laptop is on for even less. So yeah, I'm opening and closing programs a lot, and I tend to only use maybe 4 or 5 programs in regular use.

On my laptop this actually would have made a big difference. I keep my installs very clean and minimal, so for those programs, Windows 7 would open literally everything instantly. No delay. Ubuntu was very noticeably slower. Now I'm trying Ubuntu on my desktop, thinking that the extra power I have there might make up the difference, but preload would still help a lot, I think. From my perspective it's a brilliant innovation now that most people have lots of extra RAM to spare—no longer do my systems get slower over time, or lose the luster of a clean install—now they only get faster as the OS learns your habits.

I hope someone takes this back up in Linux, because in a few years most people will have 8 gigs of RAM, and with most people (like me) running Open Office, Firefox and maybe a few other programs, that's going to be a helluva lot of wasted RAM no matter how sloppy they're programmed.
 
I also have no issues with 64 bit ubuntu 9.04. I have been using the alpha's since alpha2 and have almost no issues. flash is the only thing that can be a pain in a$$ (npvviewer has crashed, =) anyone? )
 
Wow, this was my first install of Ubuntu 64 bit on my new laptop and its amazingly fast! Actually it might be that I have a new computer too....

But Its a Dell Studio XPS 13 with a 2.5ghz Core 3 Duo with 4 gigs of ram and a 7200 rpm 500 gig HDD. Its an amazing machine and Ubuntu just flies! The best thing about it is that it uses currently 277 mb of RAM while Vista is up to 1.22 gigs of RAM... Amazing!
 
othellomcbane said:
When Ubuntu 9.04 is released next month, I'll be installing it on my desktop with 4 gb of RAM (dual booting with Windows 7 64-bit). Since Linux doesn't pre-cache things natively like Windows does, and I never have enough programs open to actually use all that RAM at once, I'm wondering if I should go 64-bit or just sacrifice the extra 512 RAM and stick with the security of 32 bit. I have no idea if 64 Linux adds any complications—is it going to make any programs or themes more difficult to install, or add another step or two in my transitioning to the magical world of Linux? Will I even notice?

As a follow-up, is there any way to make Linux use the extra RAM other than the preload daemon? I already tried the Alpha 6 of Jaunty Jackalope on my laptop (just 32-bit though) with the ext4 filesystem, and it seemed to break preload, or not allow it to run at all, I'm not sure. I don't know if that was just because I was running an alpha or a new filesystem or if I was just unlucky, but at this point I'm not counting on having precaching to use my extra RAM.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

"Security of 32-bit" ? what do you mean by that? Pretty much everything works in 64-bit these days.

Also, preloaded stuff:

If you leave your desktop on, this becomes a non-issue. During normal disk activity your ram will cache more & more stuff until it is full. It just doesn't do it ahead of time.
 
I tried out Ubuntu x64 sometime last year. I'm not even sure what version it was, probably 7.10. I didn't do a whole lot with it, but the only problem I had with x64 back then was also Flash (which is still an issue even on Windows). At the time, I actually found 64-bit Linux to be way ahead of 64-bit Windows. Other than Flash, everything pretty much just worked on Ubuntu, while people were avoiding x64 Windows like the plague.
 
you lot do know there is a 64bit flash from Adobe for linux and has been for quite some time
the 1st alpha was quite shite but there has been a good couple of releases since then so much so that iirc it has left alpha and is being packaged with the install for flash from adobe
 
Yeah, having tried both now, I haven't had the slightest problem or confusion in 64 bit Ubuntu or Windows 7. Including Flash. Glad everything is smooth sailing now.
 
othellomcbane said:
Yeah, having tried both now, I haven't had the slightest problem or confusion in 64 bit Ubuntu or Windows 7. Including Flash. Glad everything is smooth sailing now.
Click to expand...

In Windows, you're running a 32-bit browser with the 32-bit Flash plugin (or possibly some wrapper to make the 32-bit plugin work in a 64-bit browser). Adobe hasn't released a Windows x64 build of Flash yet.

P.S. People have been complaining about this to Adobe since 2005. http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/19/1959200
 
othellomcbane said:
Yeah, having tried both now, I haven't had the slightest problem or confusion in 64 bit Ubuntu or Windows 7. Including Flash. Glad everything is smooth sailing now.
Click to expand...

what 64bit flash for windows?

64bit and windows is a joke really since the vast majority of the apps are still 32bit
64bit linux however ... :D the only 32bit app on my system is QuakeWars, the rest is 64bit from JAVA,Flash,mediaplayer,Office,Browser... you name it
 
Right, I didn't mean that Flash was native 64 bit or whatever, in Windows. Frankly, I don't even really mind. Firefox works. Flash works. I watch Flash videos without a problem. What difference could it make if Flash was 32 bit or 64 bit? I'm not doing benchmarks on YouTube videos.

From what I understand most basic office / desktop programs really would not benefit from being native 64 bit. The only program that I might use that I would notice even the slightest difference is Photoshop CS4. I'm using a 64 bit OS to see all of my RAM.
 
I've been using Ubuntu 64 bit for awhile now and i've had no issues.

A few years back my friends and I had driver-related issues running 64 bit windows, but nothing like that with Ubuntu.

I've also had issues with flash as someone mentioned before, but i dont know if that is due to the 64 bit OS, or just Adobe's crappy support for linux.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top