Linux Format forums

NETTKNUT · Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:59 pm Posts: 3 Location: WALES

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!

wyliecoyoteuk · Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:16 pm Post subject:

Ram · Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject:

wyliecoyoteuk · Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:42 pm Post subject:

droseraholic · Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:45 pm Post subject:

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!
_________________
Kind regards,

Adam. Smile

DavidMcCrossan · LXF regular Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:46 am Posts: 241

Stay with 32-bit, please.

Best

David
Noted local Luddite....

NETTKNUT · Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:59 pm Posts: 3 Location: WALES

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.

migrating_to_linux · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject:

nelz · Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:36 pm Post subject:

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.
_________________
Unix is user-friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are.

brightidea · Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 12:16 pm Posts: 11

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

7bluehand · Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:03 am Post subject: 64-bit please

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
_________________
All I know is that I know nothing

Cushie · Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:41 pm Posts: 31

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.

davourak · Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:31 pm Posts: 39

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.