Linux Format forums

64-bit is the way to go

davourak — Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:13 pm

Author: davourak

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:13 pm

I just booted LXFDVD160 to run Linux Mint 13. To my surprise it said it was 64-bit on the menu. But, I thought, my PC is only 32-bit, as this is my really old Celeron-based PC that I hardly use. But the 64-bit live Linux Mint ran perfectly. A bit of searching online reveals that some Celeron processors were made 64-bit, which mine must be. So I think all the distros should be the 64-bit versions, as some even really old hardware was 64-bit anyway.

LXF DVD152

Cushie — Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:32 pm

Author: Cushie

Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:32 pm

I noted there were only 19 votes cast before the vote was closed on this forum, so I've missed that chance.

I would appreciate a mix of 32/64 each month so as to try and please everyone with something to play.

64-bit please

7bluehand — Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:03 am

Author: 7bluehand

Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:03 am

Hi,
I've been reading Linux Format for a little over a year and I quite enjoy using the coverdiscs. However, I have two computers, one is 32-bit and the other is 64-bit, and although the coverdiscs can run on both computers, if I were to actually install one of the distros onto hard drive, I would only install the distro provided on the older, 32-bit PC that I own. In fact, just recently, after Backtrack was included in the magazine, I actually went online and downloaded the 64-bit version of Backtrack so I could install it on my newer PC. Personally, I think it's kind of a hassle to read about something for which a disc is provided and then have to go online to download the latest (64-bit) version because the disc provided only has the 32-bit version.

So with that said, I vote for a compromise of both. The discs should include 32-bit and 64-bit versions of some distros, then perhaps other distros could be only 32-bit such as Lubuntu, Puppy, and other light distros.

Thanks

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

brightidea — Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:23 pm

Author: brightidea

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:23 pm

I'd like to see 64 bit, but only because its a new starting point of hardware capabilities rather than 32 bit distros compiled for older standards.

From a LXF pov, I suppose they should be thinking why they provide the disk, that would probably steer things in the best direction.

personally, used 64 bit for 4+ years, maybe play with the provided distros, but i could actually not have the disk and still be happy with my subscription. do play with the distros on there, but only because i have it, how many ppl here would have no chance of downloading a distro with todays broadband availability, as i only really download something that either takes my interest or has a good LXF review/article.

Thing to take from it though, not everyone will be happy with with whatever change is made, but then that's what makes linux users such an interesting bunch

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

nelz — Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:36 pm

Author: nelz

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:36 pm

It's not a fait accompli, it is one disc that reflects the results of the poll. There is only the one 64 bit distro (Grml is a 32 bit distro with the option to boot with a 64 bit kernel, essential for a rescue disc). As for distros like Puppy Linux, well, that is on the DVD.

1 64 bit distro
1 hybrid 32 & 64 bit distro
5 32 bit distros including a couple for older hardware

That not only reflects the opinions expressed in this topic, but yours too. I can't comment on the possibility of a dual layer disc, apart from noting the added complications of authoring such a beast, but I imagine cost would be a factor. Double sided discs are an occasional feature and less troublesome.

However, even with twice the space, the same arguments apply and including two of everything just because there is more space is not always the best option. There is stuff I would have included on next month's DVD if I'd had an extra 4GB to play with, but it wouldn't have been extra copies of the same distros.

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

migrating_to_linux — Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:03 pm

Author: migrating_to_linux

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:03 pm

geek73666 wrote:

Isn't Linux format always going on about how Linux can 'resurrect old machines'? Using 64-bit distros would make that hard, especially for older machines.

+1

Keep 32bit. Include 64bit as well for those who might prefer it.

32 or 64 bit cover disc.

NETTKNUT — Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:27 pm

Author: NETTKNUT

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:27 pm

I see that this month's CD has two 64-bit distros on it; so it has become a fait accompli. I have had further thoughts on this question and it seems that a move to a dual layer CD might be the answer. This would provide plenty of extra room. Also not all Linux users have or want the latest all singing all dancing features on their machines, indeed there are plenty of distros for older slower machines such as Puppy Linux. A dual layer disc would allow a wider range of these to be featured regularly on the CD. For many years I subscribed to the now defunct Personal Computer World which had a dual layer CD as standard and always had a Linux section on it; If it was good enough for PCW it should be good enough for Linux Format. Just a thought.

32 or 64 bit coverdisks?

DavidMcCrossan — Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:37 pm

Author: DavidMcCrossan

Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:37 pm

Stay with 32-bit, please.

Best

David
Noted local Luddite....

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

droseraholic — Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:45 pm

Author: droseraholic

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:45 pm

I agree with heiowge:

Use 64-bit on the Cover DVD for the latest "heavier" distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE, Mint, etc), and 32-bit for the "lighter" versions that use less resources (Puppy, Tinycore, Lubuntu, maybe Xubuntu), and benefit older machines.

I too still have a couple of 32-bit machines, the old original Acer Aspire One netbook (as described in the LinuxFormat mini-booklet that came with the magazine around the time these machines were released), and an old desktop (that I'm aiming to get rid off). I have a nettop (Zotac ZBOX AD02) and Lenovo ThinkPad X121e, both using the AMD "Fusion" (E-350) cpu, which are 64-bit dual core, and both with 8Gb RAM, so need 64-bit distros for these.

Incidentally, starting from Ubuntu 12.04, Canonical will be recommending 64-bit by default:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxMTQ

Also, almost all new Windows 7 PCs of whatever type (desktop, nettop, netbook, laptop) are now using 64-bit CPUs and ship with 64-bit versions of Windows pre-installed.

So, certainly by the end of the year, I would be in favour of the majority of LinuxFormat Cover DVDs carrying 64-bit editions of distros (where appropriate).

Incidentally, whilst I do have broadband I find the LinuxFormat cover DVDs to be invaluable: they enable me to try out distros and software without going over my monthly download limit!

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

wyliecoyoteuk — Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:42 pm

Author: wyliecoyoteuk

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:42 pm

Ram wrote:

wyliecoyoteuk wrote:

Ubuntu 11.10 runs perfectly well on our 32bit netbooks

Doesn't on mine, realtek alc268 chipset, no speaker sound.

Sorry about that, but it is hardly relevant to the 32/64bit issue is it?
I was pointing out that 11.10 can run happily on 32 bit hardware.

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

Ram — Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:10 pm

Author: Ram

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:10 pm

wyliecoyoteuk wrote:

heiowge wrote:

Agreed, but in all fairness, a pre-64 bit machine might struggle to run Fedora 16 or the like. I see no reason to release that as a 32 bit version on the disc. Lubuntu, yes. Puppy, yes. OpenSuse 12.1, no. Ubuntu 11.10 no.

Ubuntu 11.10 runs perfectly well on our 32bit netbooks

Doesn't on mine, realtek alc268 chipset, no speaker sound.

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

wyliecoyoteuk — Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:16 pm

Author: wyliecoyoteuk

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:16 pm

heiowge wrote:

Ubuntu 11.10 runs perfectly well on our 32bit netbooks

Cover disc 32 or 64

NETTKNUT — Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:16 pm

Author: NETTKNUT

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:16 pm

Since everyone can run 32-bit OSs I see no reason for 64-bit. If there is an alternative 64-bit distro available why not put a link on the disc? This will give the most up to date version; those on the cover disc are at least a month old I think!

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

heiowge — Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:21 am

Author: heiowge

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:21 am

Agreed, but in all fairness, a pre-64 bit machine might struggle to run Fedora 16 or the like. I see no reason to release that as a 32 bit version on the disc. Lubuntu, yes. Puppy, yes. OpenSuse 12.1, no. Ubuntu 11.10 no.

Re: 32 or 64 bit cover discs?

geek73666 — Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:56 am

Author: geek73666

Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:56 am

Isn't Linux format always going on about how Linux can 'resurrect old machines'? Using 64-bit distros would make that hard, especially for older machines.