Arch 64-bit today?

aardwolf · 2011-05-02 14:55:42

Hello,

When arch 64-bit was just released the first time, it was pretty clear that the 32-bit arch was at that time still the arch with most features (e.g. the 64-bit variant had no java or flash support at that time, and who knows what other issues). So I decided to go for the 32-bit version for my computer then.

Today, what could be considered the most supported and 'best' arch? Are there still potential problems when going for the 64-bit one, or is the 64-bit arch the way to go now?

Will the 32-bit arch eventually fade into nothingness as the world fully moves to 64-bit operating systems?

Thanks.

Last edited by aardwolf (2011-05-02 15:11:51)

Bonzodog · 2011-05-02 16:01:13

Arch 64 is fully caught up with 32 bit, and has all the features of the former. It seems more people are now using the 64 bit, and it runs flawlessly on my systems.

karol · 2011-05-02 16:12:12

aardwolf wrote:

Will the 32-bit arch eventually fade into nothingness as the world fully moves to 64-bit operating systems?

Errr, what? I'm fine with my 1 GB of RAM so why would I need 64 bit? :-)

According to https://www.archlinux.de/?page=UserStatistics 32 bit is still used on 40% of machines.

Inxsible · 2011-05-02 16:12:48

Search the forums and you will find multiple threads discussing the very issue.

KimTjik · 2011-05-02 16:15:57

Some updates have been released faster for 64bit than 32bit, telling something about what developers prefer to run. I don't say its a rule, and it's still only my personal impression, but for the last couple of years it certainly looks as if Arch foremost is a 64bit distribution with good 32bit support.

There are very few crucial 32bit applications these days, and most of them is dragged behind because of their proprietary nature and focus on the Windows platform. User hardware will demand 32bit support for yet some years to come; all these Intel machines from before the adoption of 64bit technology.

If you have the hardware I see few reasons to sacrifice better performance in many computing heavy tasks and better memory support in favour of a 32bit install.

chris-kun · 2011-05-02 19:20:02

karol wrote:

Errr, what? I'm fine with my 1 GB of RAM so why would I need 64 bit? :-).

RAM isn't the only reason to switch. There are a few areas where 64-bit does offer much higher computation speed.

karol · 2011-05-02 19:22:47

chris-kun wrote:

karol wrote:
Errr, what? I'm fine with my 1 GB of RAM so why would I need 64 bit? :-).
RAM isn't the only reason to switch. There are a few areas where 64-bit does offer much higher computation speed.

I know and I fully agree with

KimTjik wrote:

If you have the hardware I see few reasons to sacrifice better performance in many computing heavy tasks and better memory support in favour of a 32bit install.

As

KimTjik wrote:

Some updates have been released faster for 64bit than 32bit,

You can see it for yourself here. Pick 'Show all' from the list on the top left to get some more info.

Last edited by karol (2011-05-02 19:47:27)

_dunmer · 2011-05-03 11:41:14

I dont see reason to use 32bit nowadays..

ChemBro · 2011-05-03 12:58:48

_dunmer wrote:

I dont see reason to use 32bit nowadays..

Netbooks (like mine) are usually 32bit only.

_dunmer · 2011-05-03 14:54:37

ChemBro wrote:

_dunmer wrote:
I dont see reason to use 32bit nowadays..
Netbooks (like mine) are usually 32bit only.

Of course, if you have 32bit architecture, you have to use 32bit system .)
I meant 64bit hw.

Grinch · 2011-05-03 16:22:41

Well, the one drawback with 64bit is that it produces slightly larger code (due to addressing being 64-bit) but that is imo far outweighed by the benefits, one of which is the addition on 8 new cpu registers which really helps with cpu intensive code.

hauzer · 2011-05-03 16:29:18

Disk space is cheap nowadays. If I had 64 bit hardware I would certainly use the corresponding Arch version.

fuzzyninja79 · 2011-05-08 18:27:55

I think that with the better encryption in 64bit (and the speed with which it is developed) 32bit will be a thing of the past in the next 2-3 years.When was the last time you saw a new computer (other then netbooks) that used 32bit architecture? Nowadays it is all 64bit and at least dual core. I use a amd 64 bit single core (laptop) and it runs way better then my much older 32bit P4.

Last edited by fuzzyninja79 (2011-05-08 18:30:02)

Awebb · 2011-05-08 18:52:59

Bonzodog wrote:

Arch 64 is fully caught up with 32 bit, and has all the features of the former. It seems more people are now using the 64 bit, and it runs flawlessly on my systems.

I seem to be unable to get some games up and running in Wine on a 64bit setup. The same 32bit setup has no problems with them. Reverting to an old Wine version did the trick in most cases, so it is more of an Upstream problem. I have also issues with a few other 32bit-only applications, mostly game console emulators with too much assembler in them. There will always be old or incompatible software, so if you don't insist on ancient software, you'll be fine.

Mr.Elendig · 2011-05-13 09:22:31

Dropping i686 support

karol · 2011-05-13 09:32:36

Mr.Elendig wrote:

Dropping i686 support

I think The Arch Overlords could use it next year and some folks would fall for it ... again ;-)
Or drop i686 in favour of ARM.

gnomeye · 2011-05-13 09:47:22

64bit still uses too many 32bit librarys...

litemotiv · 2011-05-13 09:48:12

gnomeye wrote:

64bit still uses too many 32bit librarys...

No it doesn't.

gnomeye · 2011-05-13 10:09:07

well i have some installed.. but thinking about it, the main archlinux installation may not use any of them... sorry.

einhard · 2011-05-13 13:31:51

There are two problems on 64-bit Arch: Skype (no 64bit version) and flashplugin (64bit prerelease version is a bit unstable).

SanskritFritz · 2011-05-13 13:41:20

Well, it is never too early to get prepared for the doom of 32 bit systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
The bug actually already affects 30 year mortgage loan calculations

siriusb · 2011-05-13 14:05:31

einhard wrote:

There are two problems on 64-bit Arch: Skype (no 64bit version) and flashplugin (64bit prerelease version is a bit unstable).

There is 64 package for Ubuntu, and another for Debian on Skype webpage (I know they are not Arch packages). Also, I use preview versions from preview 2 and experienced no problem so far.

GogglesGuy · 2011-05-13 14:28:49

chris-kun wrote:

karol wrote:
Errr, what? I'm fine with my 1 GB of RAM so why would I need 64 bit? :-).
RAM isn't the only reason to switch. There are a few areas where 64-bit does offer much higher computation speed.

Indeed. Also remember Arch targets i686. Which really means the "pentium pro" instruction set compatibility level (1995 is calling ). With x86_64 a lot of additional instruction sets became standard (SSE for example). So when the compiler is generating code / optimizing it potentially could use these newer and faster instruction sets. Although most modern 32bit processors (Atom for example) do have these same capabilities, the default arch compilation flags will never make use of these.

Last edited by GogglesGuy (2011-05-13 14:29:41)

voidux · 2011-05-13 17:09:50

gnomeye wrote:

64bit still uses too many 32bit librarys...

[void in ~]$ pacman -Qs lib32 || echo "none"
none
[void in ~]$ uname -m
x86_64
[void in ~]$

einhard · 2011-05-14 16:10:44

siriusb wrote:

einhard wrote:
There are two problems on 64-bit Arch: Skype (no 64bit version) and flashplugin (64bit prerelease version is a bit unstable).
There is 64 package for Ubuntu, and another for Debian on Skype webpage (I know they are not Arch packages). Also, I use preview versions from preview 2 and experienced no problem so far.

Yeah, 64bit package which uses 32bit libs. Don't joke, the same thing we have in multilib

Arch Linux

#1 2011-05-02 14:55:42

Arch 64-bit today?

#2 2011-05-02 16:01:13

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#3 2011-05-02 16:12:12

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#4 2011-05-02 16:12:48

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#5 2011-05-02 16:15:57

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#6 2011-05-02 19:20:02

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#7 2011-05-02 19:22:47

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#8 2011-05-03 11:41:14

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#9 2011-05-03 12:58:48

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#10 2011-05-03 14:54:37

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#11 2011-05-03 16:22:41

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#12 2011-05-03 16:29:18

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#13 2011-05-08 18:27:55

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#14 2011-05-08 18:52:59

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#15 2011-05-13 09:22:31

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#16 2011-05-13 09:32:36

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#17 2011-05-13 09:47:22

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#18 2011-05-13 09:48:12

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#19 2011-05-13 10:09:07

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#20 2011-05-13 13:31:51

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#21 2011-05-13 13:41:20

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#22 2011-05-13 14:05:31

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#23 2011-05-13 14:28:49

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#24 2011-05-13 17:09:50

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

#25 2011-05-14 16:10:44

Re: Arch 64-bit today?

Board footer