On 24/07/10 12:57, Alan Lord (News) wrote: > On 24/07/10 12:34, doug livesey wrote: > >> As it's an independent shop I use lots & want to support (support your >> local bookshop!), I've offered to set it up as dual-boot with Ubuntu to >> see if they prefer that, and then to either return it to M$ or convert >> fully to Ubuntu depending on which they prefer. >> My question is, should I go with the 32 or 64 bit Ubuntu? >> > Hi Doug, > > I do not think it will make much difference. But I use 32bit Ubuntu on > all my machines. Earlier experiences with codecs and flash support on > 64bit has scared me for life! > > There is a school of thought that says, as you only have 1G of ram, > there is no real benefit to using 64bit and, due to the extra length of > all the bytes whizzing around the machine it is actually slower. > > Unless you have lots of RAM >4G and/or it's a server I honestly have > found no obvious reason to go 64bit on the desktop. > > HTH > > Al > > on the other hand, I use 64bit on a few machines. Works just fine for me, flash and all. I don't think it makes a massive difference though, you could do either.
There is probably an argument that everyone should move in a 64bit direction so that one day the 32 bit build can be dropped (you can't upgrade from 32bit to 64bit without a reinstall) if you want to keep your install forever, just upgrading each time and upgrading the hardware as you go, then I would start with 64bit. Alan. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
