ubuntu: 32-bit or 64-bit?

I have a 64-bit capable processor (Core 2 Duo) and I'm going to be installing Ubuntu (unless someone talks me into using a different distro).

My usage is:
1. Web application development mainly using Java/Apache/Tomcat... tools like that... and Postgresql... maybe Ruby on Rails at some point.
2. Playing around with Linux (desktop apps, etc.)

I've spent plenty of time using Solaris and older versions of Linux, but not Ubuntu or any distro from the last couple years.

My question is... should I install the 32-bit or 64-bit version of Ubuntu? I was thinking 64-bit but then I started reading about setting up chroot jails and stuff to support 32-bit binaries (such as browsers w/ 32-bit plugins) and I'm starting to wonder if 64-bit is more trouble than it's worth. What do you guys think?

 

At this point, I don't see why you would want to go with a 64-bit distro. Unless you have 4GB of RAM IMHO you should stick with 32-bit. I've tried both versions a while back, and 32 bit just feels better overall.

 

Thanks for your response, Amol. I should have mentioned... I have 2 gb of RAM installed (which I think should be plenty for my needs under Linux). So I don't consider the RAM limit to be an issue.

 

For maximum compatibility, go with 32 bit definitely.

 

Yeah, if that's the only amount of RAM you have then I don't see why you'll need 64-bit Ubuntu.

 

Sorry to kinda jump in on your topic I've also been considering the same options with Ubuntu. As you can see in my signature, I have 4GB RAM, and I'm curious does anyone know is it worth the hassle, because usually I don't mind having to do a little work to get things going at the start, just as long as I don't have to constantly work and work to get regular applications, etc to function properly.

Thanks

 

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/InstallingUbuntuOnADellVostro1700

But that's 32-bit I think. In any case, IMHO it's always good to learn .

 

I'm currently using the 64-bit version of Gutsy and it took a considerable amount of work to get it up and purring. The repos are there but they are not maintained as efficiently as the 32-bit versions, so it's always a bit of fun to try and get things working. There have been a few packages that just straight up don't work for me (aMSN being the main one) and a few others that are just finicky (for some reason gnome power management completely ignores my settings). When Hardy is released next month I'm going to be ready with a fresh CD in the drive and the 32-bit ISO in the download queue.

Of course I'm just another user, so take my anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt. I personally enjoy a bit of a challenge which I definitely got with this project. Your mileage will of course vary.

 

aMSN has x64 packages, infact im using it right now

but, 32bit is alot less of a hassle, there have been some apps that i have wanted but cant use because they only have 32bit support. However, 64bit is coming around and it is actually quite challenging to find programs that you actually need that wont work on 64bit.

Personally, i like 64bit but its not right for everyone. Maybe do some research on what programs you will be needing and see if there is a 64bit version before you decide.

 

Yeah, I know. The packages are there, it just won't run correctly. PEBKAC, I know...

There's also this really cool glitch where gnome-system-monitor reports memory usage on a few items as 17179869180.0 GB. I don't know why it's doing it, but it amuses me greatly.

Both of those (and others) are probably either caused by hardware issues, a poorly burned/downloaded ISO or the monkey in the chair. It's all good fun, though.

 

How about wine? I will get a XPS with 4gb any day now and I plan to install 64bit Ubuntu.
Does wine work in 64bit?
M.

 

Of course. What would you need that much memory for?

 

yeah, wine works for x64 as well

 

I'm running 64bit Ubuntu 7.10 on my laptop (A Core 2 Duo 7400, with 2GB of RAM), and it's great. If you install the 32bit compatibility libraries, pretty much everything works. Compiz is awesome on it. The only real tricks come when you want to do something like get the Flash plugin working, since you then have to use nswrapper (not to be confused with ndiswrapper). But otherwise, it's slick, and faster in many cases than the 32bit version was on that machine.

If you're a developer of any sort, it shouldn't be anything insurmountable. Wine apps, not sure... never tried, not really going to. They work fine on my 32bit P4-style Xeon desktop. I'm not sure if you'd need to install the 32bit wine for 32bit windows apps, or what.

 

How can you life with less?
No kidding I need the memory. I would take 8Gb if possible.
I do scientific computing with matlab and some jobs (ICA for example) just eat memory.
I have a 16Gb Server running Suse 10.1 and I agree 16 is a bit more than needed but it's good to do two big jobs at a the same time.
For my old Notebook (with 2Gb) I am actually quite happy with WinXP, but since XP can't adress more than 3Gb

Also I do a lot of Photoshop working with RAW files from my Nikon D80. I tell you that eats memory, too.
I was tempted getting a mac because of that.
M.

 

Hm interesting. A friend claims he has a 32bit linux (Suse 10.3) but with some sort of 64bit extension. (and he insists it is not the 64bit OS) wich enables him to use all the 8Gb of his computer. Anybody knows what that is about?
M.