2

Possible Duplicate:
Why not use 64-bit Ubuntu?

enter image description here

When I tried to download Ubuntu, I have two options : 32bit and 64bit, and 32bit is recommended. Is there any reason for this?

Community
  • 1
prosseek
  • 1,835
  • 6
  • 18
  • 25
  • 1
    Some CPUs like the Intel Atom are 32 bit, and lots of older hardware don't have 64 bit drivers. – Uri Herrera Jul 26 '11 at 16:00
  • also look here http://askubuntu.com/questions/1441/why-not-use-64-bit-ubuntu – Uri Herrera Jul 26 '11 at 16:01
  • 1
    Possible Duplicate: [Why not use 64-bit Ubuntu?](http://askubuntu.com/questions/1441/why-not-use-64-bit-ubuntu) and /or [Difference between 32bit and 64 bit?](http://askubuntu.com/questions/7034/difference-between-32bit-and-64-bit) – Achu Jul 26 '11 at 16:16

1 Answers1

4

The 32-bit version of Ubuntu will run on most modern computers, but 64-bit has more specific requirements. There are a few things that won't run well with the 64-bit version (although these don't seem to be many), so the 32-bit version is recommended just to cover all the bases, I think. However, if you have a 64-bit computer, odds are that everything you need will run on it and will do so very well.

For example, I was able to get the Linksys AE1000 wireless access point to work just fine with my 32-bit Ubuntu, but when I changed to the 64-bit version I could no longer get the AE1000 to work. (Perhaps there's a fix but I was never able to find it.) However, that wasn't a big deal for me, and overall the 64-bit version feels a bit faster and it really runs everything else I've tried.

And although the 64-bit version is called AMD, it works as well on Intel 64-bit processors.

Kelley
  • 32,262
  • 2
  • 24
  • 32
  • Heck, I've tried the 64-bit version. It does have an edge in performance, but not that much. I'd stick with the 32-bit version for now. – TreefrogInc Jul 26 '11 at 16:36