|
Description
Make installation of 64-bit on desktop easier. There are many obstructions such a Flash, Opera, Skype etc. And many MANY others...
Many users still use 32-bit Ubuntu just because they scare - complicated setup of 64-bit means less users > Less desktop users means less topics at support phorums > less help > more (unsolved) problems for new 64-bit users.
All new computers are 64-bit (Intel/AMD). Be more oriented to new "standard" desktop computers and take the advantages!
Yes, it's a 64-bit world ;-)
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Madrefoca wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 15:49
| |
I agree with you, but I have to say that Flash player is developed by Adobe/Macromedia only for 32bit so this isn't ubuntu's fault
|
|
roazena wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 15:53
|
It isn't obvious to evil that closed-source plugins/apps are the stumbling block for 64-bit: Adobe Flash, Opera, eBay's Skype, etc.
Canonical might be in a good position to emphasize the importance of 64-bit support to these vendors, but the lack of momentum for 64-bit comes from the anemic performance difference between 32-bit and 64-bit. Yes, Toshiba sells AMD Turion X2 64-bit systems...with 32-bit Vista Home Premium installed. Even Microsoft doesn't have enough leverage to convince Adobe, Opera, and others to make the transition right now.
I suspect when market share for 64-bit systems surpasses 60% they'll start work on it.
|
|
ubby wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 15:55
|
I can use Ubuntu 64 bit but I don't do it because of the obstructions.
And 64 bit is the future!
|
|
kclive18 wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 16:02
| |
Many apps are 64-bit, but the basic browser plugins NEED to get there too. Java has already gone open-source, so expect a 64-bit plugin soon. As for the others...well idk...these companies are like dinosaurs compared to the open-source community of developers.
|
|
evil wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 16:05
|
I know - most problems are about third party sw designed for 32-bit. Okay, this is not ubuntu's fault.
BUT I spent over a month trying to install flash plugin into 64-bit 7.10. I am a very very patient man and not a linux-newbie so it does work now... But there's almost no way for newbies who need Flash and Skype for their life.
It's much easier to reinstall to 32-bit than make it running fine on 64-bit. AND it's even easier to return to WIN XP or VISTA...
|
|
exactopposite wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 17:50
|
Flash isn't a problem with 64 bit at all. It installs from the repos with just like it does on 32 bit. Opera 9.5 is going to be 64 bit compatible. It's in beta or alpha stage now, so it's definitely on the way. I just checked and skype is availible in synaptic on my desktop running 64bit gutsy. (I admit I haven't attempted to use skype but it is in the repos)
Install 64 bit and try it for yourself to see what works and what doesn't. The problems you list above aren't problems with 64 bit anymore. I haven't had a single problem installing anything on 64 bit. I'm usre there are some things out there that would be difficult to get working in 64 bit ubuntu, but I haven't encountered any of them. I installed everything on 64 bit that i had been running on 32 bit and I installed it all simple and easy with synaptic.
I'll vote this up because as a 64 bit user, I think it deserves all the attention it can get. I think u might want to update your info on the status of 64 bit though.
|
|
spyyder wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 18:18
| |
Hybrid 32/64 like Leopard is!
|
|
Estesark wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 20:20
|
Quote, exactopposite:
> Flash isn't a problem with 64 bit at all. It installs from the repos with just like it does on 32 bit.
You're lucky. Yes, it installs alright, but many, many websites do not display properly. Some don't display at all and just leave a large white space where the Flash is meant to be.
The only way I found around this problem was to install Flash manually, following the instructions at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=476924 - but this isn't without problems either. There is NO full screen support in the stable r48 plug-in (you have to use the unstable r115 plug-in to get that, or so I'm told - it didn't work for me), and the quality seems to be a lot worse than on 32-bit, although that could just be for me.
Still, what would be much better would be to get Gnash or Swfdec up to a decent level of usability (I've had problems with both). That should be a higher priority than further integration with proprietary software.
|
|
Estesark wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 20:30
| |
Oh, and scroll bars don't work sometimes, which is particularly annoying when watching a video or listening to a song, and the whole thing freezes if you try to do anything in the settings.
|
|
exactopposite wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 21:42
|
Estesark
I had a the problem with fullscreen not working properly (on youtube for example) but it was a setting in compiz that fixed it. I don't remember off the top of my head exactly what it was.
I totally agree that getting gnash or swfdec workign 100% would be the ideal situation.
|
|
jsnow wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 21:46
| |
I agree that installing flash on 64 bit was a lot more trouble than it should be (it was awhile ago, though, so I can't remember exactly what sort of problems I ran into, I think it may have been a conflict with a very old version of the flash plugin that was sitting in /.mozilla/plugins). Yes, flash is proprietary, and buggy, and it is Adobe's fault there is no 64 bit version, but that doesn't mean that getting the 32 bit version working in 64 bit ubuntu should be difficult.
|
|
flip314 wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 22:52
| |
I'm FINALLY starting to see computers available from major retailers with 4GB of RAM and Vista 64-bit. Hopefully in a year or so not only will the silly 3GB RAM computers no longer exist, but the majority of new software will be 64bit or at least 32/64bit. I really can't believe how much Adobe has dragged their feet on 32bit flash though...
|
|
surban wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 23:35
|
Please also make sure that 32-bit versions of professional commercial software (Maple, Mathematica, Matlab, etc.) run flawlessly on 64-bit versions of Ubuntu.
I know that 64-bit versions of these software packages exist, however there are people out there, who bought the 32-bit versions and later upgraded their machines to 64-bit.
|
|
miroku wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 00:59
| |
so i made the switch to 64 bit when i got my new computer in december 07. havent been very pleased with it so im switching back to 32 bit once hardy hits. yea im willing to sacrifice my extra ram because im fairly new to linux (about a 1.5 yrs in) and i dont want to switch to 'non-mainstream' distros and have to learn how to deal with even less support from major hardware/software vendors. i dont know if many users are 'scared', i think its more about the fact that they know there is less compatibility and arent willing to go thru the headaches of it. so yes, more focus on 64 bit please b.c it is the future!
|
|
ka2 wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 07:01
| |
spyyder: it already is
|
|
ivanqwe wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 10:11
|
Hi,
I use my 64-bit ubintu since december 2007.
I installed 7.10 gutsy.
There were a lot of issues which are connected with the lack of well made software for 64-bit platforms. As the colleagues mentioned above:
1. browser - I took swiftweasel for 64 bit platforms because of issues with firefox and citrix ...After realising that citrix does not provide client for 64-bit linux. I tried to use java client. Again problems with jdk from sun. Finally - swiftweasel + blackice java.
Problems with gnash - PC block after trying to load some pages with flash. It keeps blocking my PC, that is why I am very carefull when I open web pages ...
2. a lot of issues in time of instalation (HP 6715s-amd thurion 64bit, ATI video, wifi, bluetooth). :) I had to reinstall wholl stuff more than three times, because of these issues.
3. drivers for usb camera. I tried with Hama webcam metal, but without success. With workaround I succeed to use philips usb webcamera and it works somehow ...
:) there were a lot of other issues, but the I used to forget the bad stuff.
I really hope that in the really near future, the accent of software and hardware vendors will be on 64 bits.
|
|
UBfusion wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 12:49
|
If you study the ubuntuforums x86 64-bit Users stickies and posts, some trends will emerge:
1. It is hard to convince everybody that 64-bit is useful (yet). It does not seem to be faster and it still needs so much more attention than 32-bit that many users try 64 and revert to 32.
2. It has not yet been possible to compile a one-stop shop serving How-to documents for setting up the essentials for an 64-bit desktop. One has to search here and there.
3. Unless you have 4GB or more of memory, it's not worth investing time on 64-bit.
Don't these posts and your comments above imply that 64-bit is not mature yet? Perhaps some of you might think that we're trapped in a vicious circle: unless there is a large user base of 64-bit the chances to fix bugs and issues diminish, together with the total number of 64-bit users.
I would like to see three things (and these may become separate #ideas provided there are enough 64-bit users):
1. A 64-bit *non-compatibility* list that would definitely save users willing to experiment on 64-bit a lot of frustration and disappointment. These users typically will download the live iso and although they see that some things do not work well, they will still install it, in the hope that somewhere someone might have found a solution. They'll spend countless days in order to make their unsupported hardware (e.g. wireless card) work and will conclude that Ubuntu is worthless since this card already works on some other linux distribution.
2. A survey poll to determine the percentage of 64-bit regular users (the ones that use 64 bit as their main platform). The numbers of iso downloads or synaptic requests is irrelevant. Unless this percentage is not known, decisions on how many developer/debugging resources should be thrown at 64-bit cannot be made.
3. A list of situations and hardware configurations (beyond having 4+GB RAM), programs and customisations of Ubuntu that present a definite measurable advantage (say >10% improvement) over a 32-bit installation. If this cannot be done *now*, then the time for 64-bit has not come yet. The only comparative benchmarks I've seen so far seem inconclusive.
I am still stubbornly struggling with 64-bit, and 32 bit won't lead me into temptation, because it just does not make sense to me that we have 64 bit hardware and not enough software for it. This means that when 128-bit hardware emerges, we'll still be stuck with 32-bit.
|
|
Kilz wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 13:47
|
Problems with proprietary applications like Skype and Flash will continue until the people who own these things upgrade the, Ubuntu can not do it.
This page so far has a lot of misinformation on the 64bit version, including Flash.
The learning curve that all Windows users face is as much a problem if not more so for the 64bit user. Those that try it first are told that the 32bit version is the answer to all their problems. When in fact it is not. At this point both the 32 and 64bit versions have issues, those may not be solvable by the development team. But the perception that 32bit "just works" and the 64bit version doesn't is proved false by the shear volume of posts on the Ubuntu forums on the 32bit version.
Other misinformation like the only reason to use the 64bit version are the increased amount of ram add to the problem. Any number crunching application will benefit from 64bit. Video editing, encoding, 3d modeling, 3d rendering, ripping cd's and countless other applications benefit from 64bit.
64bit owners should be instructed not to ask Should I install 64bit but rather Why shouldn't I install 64bit. The 32bit version on 64bit hardware gives 0% performance improvement all the time. 64bit gives performance sometime. It is better to have some than none.
Other issues include people who tried 64bit 4 versions ago and continue to comment on it like time and Ubuntu have stood still. This is very common in the Absolute Beginners section.
What needs to be done? The live cd can use some work. It consistently fails the 64bit version install and the Alternate cd is recommended.
Policy should be put in place to direct all posts from users thinking about 64bit or have 64bit problems to the 64bit section of the forums.
|
|
evil wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 19:37
|
I am using 64bit desktop on my primary workstation for web development (incl. virtualization for testing purposes) and for "normal life" also (byz+private, no gaming).
Intel Quadcore Q6600, 2GB RAM, Intel DragonTail Peaks MB.
Installed from Ubuntu 7.10 amd64 alternate cd.
I think it IS FASTER than 32bit on most operations, except boot-up/power-off.
...YES, it should be benefit for video editing, encoding, 3d modeling, 3d rendering, ripping cd's and countless other applications... but there is NO BENEFIT when you can't install these applications because of many problems or not-existing amd64 .deb packages.
It is NOT a way for desktop user to play with Alien or compiling the source to get the application.
|
|
paol wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 19:50
|
The silly thing is, supporting the (few) bits of software that are 32bit only on 64 installations is easy, and yet Ubuntu has chosen not to do so.
Example: the most common complaint is the flash plugin, well guess what: it's trivialy easy to solve simply by using a 32bit build of Firefox (which runs just fine on 64bit Ubuntu). Yet ubuntu ships with a 64bit build, which can't use the flash plugin, which in turn results in all around user frustration.
Me, I just ignore the Firefox version that ships with the system and dowload a build form ftp.mozilla.org (which only has 32bit builds), install 32bit flash, problem solved. (Caveat: you do have to apt-get install the 32 bit support libraries first, as they're not present by default - another bad decision)
|
|
evil wrote on the 6 Mar 08 at 20:58
|
POSSIBLE SOLUTION OF _MANY_ (but not all) TROUBLES WITH 64bit DESKTOP (?): User should select version of application to install (32 or 64bit) from synaptic (or other). In the case of 32bit > automatic installation of 32bit libraries needed.
AND the same ability to install 32bit apps from .DEBs instead of die('Wrong architecture').
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 01:03
|
Yeah, all computers sold are 64-bit now.
Apple moved to 64-bit with Leopard I think.
Microsoft will probably make next Windows be 64-bit only.
Windows should default to 64-bit soon too...
|
|
Aubrey wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 01:29
|
To me, advancing 64 bit Ubuntu to the front of the pack is THE strategic priority. Sorting out the above problems and giving users the option of a seamless transition from 32 to 64 bit is a market positioning issue. For anyone but a power user the current situation is SCARY and delaying uptake.
Personally, I would move to 64 bit tomorrow (for Blender work mainly) but I have read the forums and am very reluctant to go through the hassles.
|
|
Kilz wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 02:04
|
Evil your posts on your experiences with the 64bit version are not to be considered the norm. The idea that there is something missing from the 64bit repositories that is in the 32bit repositories for for video editing, encoding, 3d modeling, 3d rendering, ripping cd's and countless other applications is nothing but FUD and misinformation.
Fact On Launchpad the repositories for the 32bit and 64bit versions have the same package count. Fact the install guide sticky for the 64bit section http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=134 uses sudo aptitude , and Synaptic for all the common applications.
Can you find some ancient application that isnt in the 64bit repo? Sure, but you can say the same thing about the 32bit version.
All this topic is going to do is reinforce the misinformation and fud that still floats around the web and forums. This is not a constructive use of brainstorm.
I know what Im talking about. I have over 5k posts in the help sections of the forums. 99% are in the 64bit section.
|
|
evil wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 09:32
|
Kilz: then sorry it's looks like FUD and my experiences are not to be considered the norm ;-)
64bit desktop is running just fine. All I wanna say is: new users can get into troubles with basic needs (flash, skype2, treucrypt5)...
Is it bad idea to allow user install 32bit .DEBs on 64bit systems?
|
|
Aubrey wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 11:26
|
Granted, Kilz, some of the comments seem overly critical of the current state of 64 bit Ubuntu, but I think the point of the suggestion really relates to making 64 bit the "norm" over the next couple of releases. Dealing with both real and perceived barriers to uptake should get some priority.
BTW, your help on the 64 bit forum is very much appreciated.
|
|
Kilz wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 12:30
|
Aubrey,
there is no way for Flash, Skype, Opera or other proprietary applications to become a focus as the lead post suggests. They are Closed source. There is nothing the Ubuntu developers can do. Flash is already working with nspluginwrapper, that didnt come from Ubuntu.
As for making 64bit the norm, that will happen when people download and install it more that the 32bit. But misinformation on the forums, web, and even posts in this topic scare people away.
Evil,
When I pointed out the types of applications that benefit from the 64bit version you suggested they are not in the repositories. This is not true.
32bit debs can be installed on a 32bit system. But its manual. The thing is, you dont need to install them, most applications are in the repositories. Please name any open source applications in the categories mentioned in my previous post that are not in the repos.
To make it automatic would require dpkg to be rewritten. The Ubuntu developers have said in the past that they are waiting on Debian to do it.
Good luck getting the developers to change their minds when the number of applications this would effect is only a handful and keeps dropping in number.
|
|
evil wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 15:34
|
Kilz:
U r right almost @ all. No discuss.
I just did not say "there is something missing in the repos." What I mean is > if the user is not satisfied with all his needs, he will look for different OS; eg. Someone need his computer for work@home [communication via skype2, using the web incl. flash, securing data using truecrypt] and also for privat life [video editing, photo archive, mp3...]. This /theoretical/ user will probably not install 2 different OS on his computer. If he stuck in problems with more than only one of his needs, he will choose 32bit or a totally different OS.
Does it make sense this way? (sorry 4 my english ;-)
I know: most of above mentioned problems are about 3rd party closed source software. But even if they r bad ("true evil"), there is no working open-source substitution and many ppl have to use this software.
As u wrote to Aubrey @ 12:30 - There is nothing the Ubuntu developers can do with closed source third party sw. But is it possible to make some easy-to-use installation process of 32bit .DEBs on 64bit desktop? Something like 32bit application wrapper?
I just don't understand why this should be so problematic in comparision with Windows API @ wine.
(Please remember, it's a question, not a flame! ;-)
video editing => Cinelerra
encoding => no problems
3d modeling => I have no idea about 3d modeling.
3d rendering => I have no idea about 3d rendering.
ripping cd's => no problems
countless other applications => truecrypt5
|
|
flip314 wrote on the 7 Mar 08 at 22:03
| |
@UBFusion: Within 1 year (and probably within 6 months) all computers will have at least 4GB RAM. The time for 64-bit is now.
|
|
mbottrell wrote on the 10 Mar 08 at 07:47
|
I've hung off with installing 64-bit Ubuntu for some time... and it's percieved. (from what I see in the forums).
I do have some 3rd party apps that are only 32-bit, but I'll manually get those going, but for everything else I do see the need to start moving everyone to 64-bit.
32-bit is becoming old... all new PCs (or those in recent years) are all 64-bit.
I would love to see 32-bit move to 'legacy' and 64-bit pushed as the norm.
Once mass users move across, the chicken/egg scenario we currently have with 3rd party developers is likely to get some attention.
|
|
mbottrell wrote on the 10 Mar 08 at 07:47
|
I've hung off with installing 64-bit Ubuntu for some time... and it's percieved. (from what I see in the forums).
I do have some 3rd party apps that are only 32-bit, but I'll manually get those going, but for everything else I do see the need to start moving everyone to 64-bit.
32-bit is becoming old... all new PCs (or those in recent years) are all 64-bit.
I would love to see 32-bit move to 'legacy' and 64-bit pushed as the norm.
Once mass users move across, the chicken/egg scenario we currently have with 3rd party developers is likely to get some attention.
|
|
oathead wrote on the 19 Mar 08 at 11:10
|
I've been running 64-bit for a few months now and for the most part everything has been working quite well. There have been a few problems mostly due to third party propriety packages, which aren't really Ubuntu's fault. That said a lot of those problems could be fixed if Ubuntu installed libraries in an architecture specific space /usr/lib/i386 and /usr/lib/x86_64. If you take this approach any package which isn't yet 64-bit compatible is easy to install. Ubuntu's taken the approach where 64-bit versions of a library will conflict with 32-bit versions. This would certainly be a large architectural change, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.
|
|
coryg wrote on the 21 Mar 08 at 15:03
|
Is it possible to allow 32-bit emulation?
It seems that this is what Vista does and is why upgrading to 64 is not too problematic.
If 32-bit emulation was enabled by default, it seems like all problems would be solved.
|
|
flip314 wrote on the 22 Mar 08 at 04:58
| |
it's possible to run 32bit x86 programs in 64bit x64 OSes (Ubuntu included). the problem is that not all 32bit libraries are availabe/installed.
|
|
nextstep wrote on the 28 Mar 08 at 09:00
|
not sure I agree that it is a 64 bit world.
The only reason which would motivate me to run in 64 bit mode would be to gain 20-30% performance in execution speed due to the better utilization of registers and the new instruction set. However, I personally dont feel that I benefit from 64 bit addressing or wider 64 data paths. As a result, a 64 bit world is of no interest to me. The better x64 instruction set is where the advantage is, not 64 bit itself.
Unfortunately, many people will find that not all their required applications are well tested or even ported to x64... and lets get real here. ia32 will not go away for a very very long time and will be the best tested/supported platform for the foreseeable future. x64 will continue to take a back seat to ia32 for this reason.
|
|
flip314 wrote on the 1 Apr 08 at 07:10
| |
@nextstep: x86_64 will become very important in the near future when more OEMs ship computers with 4GB+ of RAM. ia32 code will live on for longer I'm sure, but most people will run it on x86_64 systems. I think the best thing is to focus on a great 64bit system that also runs the few 32bit things that people need. If linux makes the switch to 64bit smoother than windows does, it's got a good chance to grab more market share quickly.
|
|
adrian2 wrote on the 8 Apr 08 at 08:19
|
20-30% increase in performance ha? i think not, maybe more, especially if there are x64 apps. 32 bit apps are designed to throw 32 bits @ the cpu @ one time while 64 bit apps use the full path. there's much more benefit from going 64! Vista chooses to use it for graphics, i think it should be used for real computing power on ubuntu!
I mean nice graphics are cool, what about real performance? Movies, movies, online browsing, boot load, regular copy/paste /delete operations....
|
|
adrian2 wrote on the 8 Apr 08 at 08:20
| |
+1
|
|
aaronb wrote on the 11 May 08 at 10:05
|
Since 8.04 I had a good experience with x86_64 version of Ubuntu.
The following improvements did it for me...
1. Wine has a x86_64 version that works well.
2. Flash was installed easily when I visited a page that had flash.
3. All my hardware has detected and works correctly. (This did not happen in 7.10)
4. Codecs were installed easily when a clicked on a movie to play it.
5. Compatibility 32bit libs were installed when required at points 2 and 4.
I think Ubuntu is doing enough as when you download the iso it tells you what the options mean. And to me they just seem to work this same now.
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
|
|
Svenstaro wrote on the 28 Jul 08 at 02:04
|
The following are my issues:
- Improve 64bit support for newbies.
- Make 9.04 or at least 9.10 a 64bit focused release and PROMOTE 64BIT ALONG WITH IT! Give reasons for keen users looking to change. When 9.10 has come, the standard PC of even your average grandma will have 2GB RAM, you will not be able to buy a computer that will have less than that. 4GB will be the standard equipment of your average Wal-Mart computer.
New users need to understand why it makes a difference and why this difference will have a great impact on the world of computing. Imagine a world that uses +80% 64bit :).
|
|
notyetroot wrote on the 15 Aug 08 at 19:52
| |
I would vote this up, but it's on 555 votes...
|
Post your comment
|
