32 vs 64 bit

[LiQuidLego]

Hi, I'm going to try Ultimate Edition 1.9 tonight. But I don't know which version I should download.
I'm going to migrate from windows. So I want to be able to play as many of my games as possible.

Is there a big difference in how many (less) games will work on 64 bit compared to 32 bit?

Thanks!

[cowboy]

If you want to play games 32 bit seems more supportive in that area...and is as fast, in my view...
PS....welcome to Ultimate Edition....

[LiQuidLego]

Cool, thanks for the info and invite

[skyviannes]

i'd go 64bit all the way simply because i have a 64bit PC, but it depends on what your PC specs are. I have noticed that some games will work easier, if not better, under 32 bit linux. I'm still a 64bit fan, i don't mind the extra tweaking

[DaddyX3]

In all actuality, some programs work better in 64-bit when they are designed to do so. However, the speed difference is negligible and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in Ultimate Edition. If you were talking about Windows, then I would agree with you 100%. I ran XP 64-bit for a while and loved the snappiness of it. Using a 64-bit operating system in Linux is a different animal. I will tell you something that I read that came right out of a programmers mouth (yes, a Linux programmer) - running a 64-bit OS with 32-bit software will actually make the 32-bit software run slower than that same software would run on a 32-bit OS.
Don't get me wrong, 64-bit Ultimate Edition is an awesome distribution, but it isn't for everyone and everything. I like the idea of running a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit platform myself, but we must come back down to reality and realize that 64-bit programs are not as available as 32-bit programs. I do believe this is do to the complexity of programming on a 64-bit scale ... .much more difficult, from what I here.

[powwowtime]

The same things were once said about the Alpha processor years ago. Apples and oranges, yes, I know, it was a 64-bit RISC processor (today's x86_64 and AMD64 proc's are not RISC) but the argument was the same: a 64-bit processor running 32-bit software does not do so "natively" and the translation work it does on the fly adds just enough overhead to produce a nominal to noticeable lag. But then again, today's 64-bit processors are a little better at it than yesteryear's and of course they are the future; all of these 32-bit processors and programs will go the way of Windoze 3.1 and other 16-bit technology. Ah, the memories...

Currently, it looks like 32-bit distros still offer a little better compatibility while software authors work to catch up in producing 64-bit versions of their current applications. So... unless you have more than 4GB of RAM or some other specific need for 64-bit OS, why not install a 32-bit OS for now and install its 64-bit heir down the road, when 64-bit software graduates from cutting edge to industry standard? Just keep your /home directory in a separate partition and your personal files will survive any upgrade or reinstall, untouched; you're good to go.