Tim Pizey wrote: > Personally I have had no benefit (that I know of) and only downside from using 64bit
> Debian and Ubuntu.
One thing is you can't run a 64-bit KVM or LXC virtual machine on a
32-bit kernel, if you would find yourself wanting to do that at some point.
I don't know if the distros offer the option to run a 64-bit kernel
with 32-bit userland, but that would seem the best choice if they do.
The 64-bit kernel will run faster, especially if you have >= about 1GB
RAM and/or are encrypting disks, and let you run specific individual
64-bit userland things if you need to. Though, I guess your Mum isn't
likely to do the latter. :-)
I've read that 64-bit userland takes more RAM than 32-bit userland,
but often runs a bit faster despite that because of the better
> If Google, Adobe and Skype are not going to bother fully committing to 64bit would it be
> more sensible to recommend 32bit, indeed would it be more sensible for me to
> downgrade my home and work machines to 32bit?
There are so many people using 64-bit now, that I'm surprised if those
companies still aren't working with it.
Note that you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit userland, but
"some care required". Which tends to affect the closed applications more,
and browser plugins even more.
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: