Well, Virtually any HW you will purchase 'new' today can run either 32bit or 64bit OS. A point to consider is the number of apps you want in memory for fast access. With a 32bit OS there is a limit of about 3.2GB of real memory that can used. This is a addressing thing. with 64bit that number is probably larger than most average users could afford assuming the machine is designed for that much. If you have say 2 or 3 apps open that don't use tons of memory then a 32bit machine, at least from this point would be fine. If you have several apps open that like lots of memory, that's a vote for 64bit. With it being very common today to run multiple OS's ( or copies ) at the same time, if you are wanting or needing to do that then that is a vote for 64bit.
Remember a 32bit app is a 32bit app, it doesn't magically become 64bit app in the Intel world when installed on a 64bit OS. So unless you also get 64bit apps ( if available ) you may not see the gains you expect. I think unless you can find a very very cheap system they will all be at least Dual Core or better today. A single application probably won't gain much on a dual core because they aren't written to handle multicore environment, there are exceptions. Running several apps at once can definitely take advantage of multiple cores. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Fred James <fredj...@fredjame.cnc.net>wrote: > Richard Owlett wrote: > > In the "real world", is there a difference for an > > average/typical user. > > I'm contemplating the move from Windows to Linux. > > Coward that I am, I'm considering separate hardware as testbed. > > I spend most of my time in text editing and web surfing - > > doubt any advantage there. > > My other interest include Scilab, Scioslab, and gnuplot. I > > would run and display display results of *LARGE* fft's of > > _stored_ data. "Real time" minor importance. > > > > Are there subtle advantages to wider data path and/or > > multiple cores? > > Are there advantages to 64 bit implementations of Linux? > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > Richard Owlett > Someone else (multiple someones, probably) will, and will be better able > to, answer you question(s) in more depth, but I can advance an opinion > on 32 vs 64 for the "average" user ... so far, none, and in some case > the impact is negative. > > The deciding factor is (still) software ... what do you want to run and > is it available on 64 bit? If what you want to run is not available on > 64 bit, then any advantage that the 64 might offer will be of no use to > you. > > As to "real world" differences for the "average/typical" user, as a > "real world" user, I can say the list of advantages is long, but the > learning curve can be, too. Be not dismayed there is much help on list > of this sort and at the meetings, too. > > Good luck, and I hope you do make the switch ... when I did (finally and > complete, back about Red Hat 9 after messing since Red Hat 5) I found my > computing life much brighter. There are still problems/issues around > interfacing with people who use MS ... for example, I receive the > occasional *.docx file ... sigh ... no matter how much I may express a > preference. But then my word processor (OpenOffice 2.2.1) is a bit out > of date ... still I get by. I like Linux a lot ... hope you do too. > Regards > Fred James > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > -- Kirk _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
