Dr. Roy Schestowitz Latest posts | Real-time contact
Short bio: Software Engineer, interdisciplinary researcher, and an advocate of fair competition (read more)
Latest posts | Profile
Short bio: Computer Scientist, FOSS supporter (read more)
Tux Machines (TM)-specific
Submit search form
I'm running PCLinuxOS, which is patched to be able to use memory like a 64 bit kernel, while still being only 32 bit. Works great. 64 bit is the future, but with things like Flash such a problem on the 64 bit architecture, it seems like a long journey for Linux to get there. I think it's time we leave 32 bit behind.
If your cpu is 6 years old or more, running 64-bit was a costly option, if available at the time.
My Intel D805 dual-core processor remains only 32-bit capable, and there are current Intel and AMD processors which remain capable of only accessing 4G or less RAM, only. What advantage to run 64-bit code?
Many ARM processors remain 32-bit.
Embedded processors still include 16-bit, and even 8-bit processors.
I have a Kobo ebook reader. The Linux client only works in 32bit. The deb can be force installed in 64bit, but you can never get past the log in. Hardware accelerated flash will only work in 32bit with an Nvidia driver.
One day I will chuck out the Kobo and Adobe will support other APIs for flash. Little things that matter to some and not to others.
Been running 64-bit Linux since 2005 and Windows since Vista's launch. I don't get why so many people still insist on 32-bit OSes.
I have "Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz" but for some reason I'm still running 32bit ArchLinux..
Tux Machines is proud to be hosted by
Follow the site via RSS/Twitter.
Part of Bytes Media
Content (where original) is available under CC-BY-SA, copyrighted by original author/s.
Help Support TM
Wall of Appreciation
Powered by CentOS 6.5 (GNU/Linux), Varnish, and Drupal