| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 140097 | 2015-08-17 07:54:00 | win8.1 plus Ubuntu 14.4 on USB | Antonia46 (17053) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1406870 | 2015-08-17 07:54:00 | I am using windows 8.1 on 64.bit I want to use Linux Ubuntu on a USB Stick Do I download the Ubuntu .ISO file .64 bit 0r 32.bit ? Thank you |
Antonia46 (17053) | ||
| 1406871 | 2015-08-17 09:17:00 | Get the 64-bit unless the laptop has less than 2 gigs of RAM. | Jen (38) | ||
| 1406872 | 2015-08-17 12:19:00 | less than 2gigs RAM? What theory is that? 64 bit architect should use 64bit, memory constraints would suggest a lighter linux flavour, one not so memory intensive than to drop down to 32bit as you undercut your processing abilities. Cheers, KK |
Kame (312) | ||
| 1406873 | 2015-08-17 19:20:00 | less than 2gigs RAM? What theory is that?It is what Ubuntu themselves recommend.... | Jen (38) | ||
| 1406874 | 2015-08-17 20:52:00 | 64 bit addresses are larger and take up more space, as does the code. 32 bit is inherently "lighter". Also unless you have bandwidth issues there's no reason not to download both and try them, especially if you are planning on just running a live version and not installing it. I tend to use 32 bit on older hardware and 64 bit on newer, really can't tell the difference in practice. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1406875 | 2015-08-17 23:10:00 | I use puppy for running live as it is so light | gary67 (56) | ||
| 1406876 | 2015-08-18 07:41:00 | Thanks Jen, That explains it. Which was why I would recommend an alternative distro if your memory does fall under that recommendation. You really want to have the potential to make full use of your processors capabilities than to cut it down performance wise. 64 bit addresses are larger and take up more space... They can hold more now. Just the way you said that made it sound like its wasting space but I believe its more about not being able to use it's full potential. In other words a compiler may optimised the code to spread it out more across the processor, resulting in larger compiled code but speed wise it would be quicker for the processor to comprehend. The only area you could really see where 64bit actually shines is through its processing of large numbers, maybe a complex algorithm like that used in graphics, otherwises you won't notice a huge differences if you compare it on it INCrementing a number, because on both 32bit and 64bit, it still only takes 1 cycle to process. Cheers, KK |
Kame (312) | ||
| 1 | |||||