Zane Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Possibly a dumb question, but besides the obvious reason: not being able to use 64-bit applications, are there any other cons using an i386 OS on a 64-bit CPU? I have an AMD Athlon II X4 620 Processor. I'm wanting to install the new Ubuntu 10.10 beta on it instead of Windows 7. I might possibly just install Win7 as a virtual machine afterward just to use my favorite apps, but my main concern is whether it will be less efficient than installing the x64 version. Another question, how hard would it be (assuming I did install the i386 kernel) to change it to x64 later on? Is it as easy as entering a command or would I have to format and redo everything from square one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Does the new beta not come in a 64bit version? The only other con I can think of is that you may not have access to ram above around 2G. It will likely be easier and more reliable to reinstall from scratch to move from i386 to x64. In theory, it should be possible but it would be a massive task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zane Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 The only other con I can think of is that you may not have access to ram above around 2G. For real! That blows. I have 4Gs atm and I've already downloaded the ISO... uninstalled Windows and am now using GParted in Live mode to move my backup drive to the end of the HDD. For some reason, I had unallocated space, before and after my 500G NTFS backup drive. Now I gotta wait like 3 hours for it to do its thing. Surely to god I can use my 4Gigs of RAM... I'll have to read up on that, unless you're absolutely positive about that. Damn, I was so hoping to get away with the i386 version in peace. x64 OSs have given me nothing but problems. EDIT: Ok, So I can't find any actual documentation anywhere saying Maverick Meerkat x86 supports a max of 2GB RAM, but looking at the System Monitor in Live Mode it shows only 3 GB. So, there's definitely something wrong there, but I'm hoping it's just the live mode........ hoping. EDIT2: Well I'll be damned, I just now noticed that the partition manager barely recognises 700MB (i.e 698.94) of my 750MB HDD... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it is the case. 2G might not be the number though. Ive been using x64 for at least 3 years without issue. Surely there is an x64 version of this OS you are installing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zane Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 Surely there is an x64 version of this OS you are installing? Yeah, there is. I just for some reason took the chance of using the i386 version in hopes of not having to use x64 versions of every app I decide to use. I guess I'll just have to go download that ISO now, sucks I can't do it in Live Mode. Nor can I burn CDs. .... I could possibly take the challenge of figuring out how to convert to x64.... but..... fuck that. Thanks for the heads up thorpe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roopurt18 Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 Every 32-bit OS, from Linux to Windows, I've run on my 4GB machine only picks up ~3.2GB of RAM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zane Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 Well, I've downloaded and burnt the x64 version to a disk. The only thing holding me back now is the wait for Gparted. to move and copy my 500G backup partition (NTFS) to the end of the drive, which has taken close to 8 hours already and still it's not done. @roopurt, is it normal for a 32-bit OS not to recognize all 750GB of my HDD? Because currently it's only showing 698.94GB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 698G sounds about right for a 750G drive. There always smaller than advertised because your system will measure them with 1024M in a gig while the size written is usually rounded to 1000M in a gig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zane Posted September 27, 2010 Author Share Posted September 27, 2010 So, here's the update I successfully moved the partition... it took close to 9 hours, jesus! Meanwhile, I downloaded the x64 ISO version. When the partition was done with its thing I restarted and changed CDs. 698G sounds about right for a 750G drive. There always smaller than advertised because your system will measure them with 1024M in a gig while the size written is usually rounded to 1000M in a gig. It turns out that it was the 32-bit OS showing me less, because now it is showing that I have 750.2GBs. On the other hand, it's only showing that I have 3.6 GB of RAM. It must be going bad I guess? Either way, alls well now and I'm tinkering with stuff. Trying to get Wine running correctly.. apparently I need something called JACK Control to mimic an ASIO driver or something.. everyday in a linux world is a new adventure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trq Posted September 27, 2010 Share Posted September 27, 2010 everyday in a linux world is a new adventure. Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.