According the ubuntu.com webside (ubuntu.com/download/desktop) 32 bit is still the recommended architecture.



I thought this will be 64bit in this release?
*



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 26 April 2012 13:18, <Lucas.Betschart@crypto.ch> wrote:
> According the ubuntu.com webside (ubuntu.com/download/desktop) 32 bit is
> still the recommended architecture.
>
> I thought this will be 64bit in this release?

Why would 64 bit be recommended? The 32 bit installation media will
work in all machines - the 64 bit version will not.

--
Steve

When one person suffers from a delusion it is insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 26 April 2012 14:50, <Lucas.Betschart@crypto.ch> wrote:
>>> According the ubuntu.com webside (ubuntu.com/download/desktop) 32 bit
>>> is still the recommended architecture.
>>>
>>> I thought this will be 64bit in this release?
>
>>Why would 64 bit be recommended? The 32 bit installation media will work in all machines - the 64 bit version will not.
>
> At the 12.04 developer summit Canonical decided to ship 64 bit as default. (www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxMTQ)

Well, as you've pointed out, it seems they've changed their minds (or
not updated their website).

--
Steve

When one person suffers from a delusion it is insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:18:06PM +0200, Lucas.Betschart@crypto.ch wrote:
> According the ubuntu.com webside (ubuntu.com/download/desktop) 32 bit
> is still the recommended architecture.
>
> I thought this will be 64bit in this release?

There was a recent discussion on the ubuntu-devel mailing list, and
people decided to keep the 32-bit version as default.

The decision was based on somewhat surprising data collected by the
Ubuntu Friendly project: 25% of submissions were from 32-bit machines.

Here's the entire thread:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-April/thread.html#35054

Marius Gedminas
--
Alan Turing thought about criteria to settle the question of whether
machines can think, a question of which we now know that it is about
as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim.
-- Dijkstra
--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:35:32 +0100, Steve Flynn
<anothermindbomb@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 26 April 2012 13:18, <Lucas.Betschart@crypto.ch> wrote:
>> According the ubuntu.com webside (ubuntu.com/download/desktop) 32 bit
is
>> still the recommended architecture.
>>
>> I thought this will be 64bit in this release?
>
> Why would 64 bit be recommended? The 32 bit installation media will
> work in all machines - the 64 bit version will not.

When you have a ton of memory and want to use it all.

Avi

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 04/26/2012 04:31 PM, Avi Schwartz wrote:


On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:35:32 +0100, Steve Flynn
<anothermindbomb@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 26 April 2012 13:18,<Lucas.Betschart@crypto.ch> wrote:

According the ubuntu.com webside (ubuntu.com/download/desktop) 32 bit

is

still the recommended architecture.

I thought this will be 64bit in this release?


Why would 64 bit be recommended? The 32 bit installation media will
work in all machines - the 64 bit version will not.


When you have a ton of memory and want to use it all.

Avi



...and have multicores that you want to spin fully wide open. When I had
2 gigs of memory, 32bit was just peachy. With 16 gigs I'd have to be
nuts to run 32bit. Memory is cheap nowadays. I'm poor as a churchmouse,
but I couldn't pass up the bargain. You'd be hard pressed to actually
buy a 32bit motherboard today. Not that you couldn't, but why would you?
Then for about $80 US extra, install 16 gigs of ram. Ric




--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users