Hello,

I want to install Kubuntu 12 TLS on my working laptop, but the problem is that I am in a big doubt I dont know if to install 32 bits or 64 bits one? Since I use a lot of software for work... I am just wondering is there an issue with 64 bits? what I mean is that is there any software use for work that will give me problems, like skype, filezilla, gedit, libreoffice, etc?


Also I have Nvidia Optimus on this laptop, using Bumblebee would fix this issue for me to use Kubuntu, right?

Thanks again for your help!!

Appreciatte it!!

PD: Please keep in mind that this is for working laptop not for personal laptop!!

Kubuntu supports a multilib installation so that you can run 32-bit only binaries in a 64-bit installation for 32-bit only such as skype, steam, or a few others. Most of those programs you listed have 64-bit native versions in linux.

IMO, there's no good reason to use 32-bit only software nowadays for x86-based processors. If the hardware is so old it doesn't support it, you can easily replace it now with inexpensive hardware that does.

Now, as for the hybrid graphics, no clue. Never tried to set up anything with Hybrid, so no idea how easy it is or how well it works.

Hello Timothy,

First of all thanks for the reply, so basically I can install 64bits and 32bits, and I use mainly 64bits and run on 32bits libraries software that does only have 32bits version right??

But, I got intel Core i5-480M for 64bit processor not AMD64, this works on 64 bits too right?


Thanks again!!

Hi there,

it's not quite that simple. Fortunately, there is an increasing awareness of power consumption, which is why for example the Atom CPUs are flooding the market. And the first-generation Atoms, like the 230 or the 270N, are 32bit only (and single-core at that). And that's true for some other low-power CPUs as well, like the VIA Eden, or the Geode NX series.

So if somebody is deliberately setting up a small system with very low power consumption, he or she might still be limited to a 32bit environment. And honestly, I don't think it's that much of a limitation.

[X] Doc CPU

Hello Doc CPU,

Then what you recommend?? 32 or 64? Remember is for working, not personal laptop and I prefer having everything running the faster as possible. Would this affect my pc?

Thanks again, appreciatte the help

Hi there,

I recommend to look at the hardware you're using. Consider your laptop. You'll probably find that it has a 64bit capable CPU, so there's no reason not to use a 64bit operating system. I just tried to argue against Timothy Miller's statement that people should upgrade their hardware if it isn't 64bit capable. There are situations where this simply isn't an option.
Your hardware is very probably okay with 64bit, and so there's no point in hesitating.

I don't see why this should make a difference - except that I'm using stricter rules for private use than I would for commercial use.

[X] Doc CPU

Hey again,

What I meant that I need to run wine for some applications that mostly work well on 32 bits, like photoshop, dreamweaver on wine. And for what I read wine in 64 bits does not work as good as 32 bits version. What is your opinion?

Thanks again,

Hi there,

do you really? 'cause I don't.

I never really used WINE in a productive environment. I played around with it, tried a bit - way back in ... what was it? ... Ubuntu 9 or 10, I think. I found that it was always tricky to get a particular application running in WINE. Very often, they needed specific versions of specific DLLs installed that corresponded to a particular patch level of Windows. So I had to go and search for these DLLs again and again and import them into the WINE environment. Too much of a hassle, actually.

That's why I went for Windows in a virtual machine instead. That worked a lot better, but there was also a problem about that: The Windows programs I wanted to use often interacted very closely with a particular piece of hardware - the DVD drive, or some PCI add-on card. That simply didn't work in a VM, and so I'm using a real Windows XP machine for these tasks. There's nothing like the real thing, you know. ;-)

A VM is okay for opening and/or editing documents in a Windows-only application, but as soon as there's more about it, I have to power on my good old XP machine.

[X] Doc CPU

Well, Doctor CPU is obviously right on having the native windows machine. However, if you just need to stick to wine, I'd recommend crossover application.
It's a commercial fork for running windows apps in X11 environment forked from wine, but excludes all that dlls stuff because It install all the deps for an application automatically.
Even if its runtime engine is wine, it's way better, simpler and more user-friendly.
That means you will just install office etc natively just as with windows.

Its 64-bit.

http://ark.intel.com/products/52952

AMD64, x86_64, EMT64, Intel 64, all the same basic thing (intel just couldnt deal with 'AMD' in a name.....bah, i(ntel)286 etc..)

It will work without bumblebee, but it will run hotter and use more power.

So yeah, install bumblebee, if only so you can shut down the nVidia GPU.

Atoms are cheap, thats got more to do with them 'flooding' the market than the lower power consumption.

Atom 230 is 64bit capable-

http://ark.intel.com/products/35635

Sure, there are a few atoms (and other obsolete CPUs) that are not 64-bit capable, like the N270. But the N270/N280 are the only atom 'netbook' CPUs to not be 64-bit capable, all the others are SoC/phone/'ultra-mobile' versions. They are also 2008/2009 CPUs, and were mostly found in 'budget' systems, that have largely been made if not obsolete then 'uncool' by the rise of tablets, and should be repalceable with a newer version for a very small outlay.

You have a point, but so does Timothy Miller.

There are quite a few people out there still running 32-bit only P4s that will eat twice as much power as a current system. For them it would be cheaper long term to upgrade to something newer, faster and more efficient.

Hi there,

being cheap is of course another very significant point. But if that was the only thing, manufacturers and dealers wouldn't have had to advertise the low power consumption - from a consumer's view, the low price alone would win. But fact is that in 2009/2010 there were many Atom-based computers available that were explicitely advertised for their low power requirement. A CPU that didn't require a fan was unbelievable for many people. And bundled with a PicoPSU-60 and an external fanless 12V power supply, you had a completely silent PC (except for the whirr of the HDD).

It is?? Indeed, yes. Then I never used my Atom-230-PCs appropriately. ;-)
I was under the impression that the 230 and the 270N were basically the same, except that the latter was a bit smaller and supported frequency scaling (which the 230 doesn't).

[X] Doc CPU

Oh, yeah, there were manufacturers and review pages banging on about atoms 'low power consumption'. Sometimes it was true, but often it wasnt, and was almost never true for desktop systems or retail atom CPU + motherobard setups.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...nt,1981-7.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...pu,1947-4.html

Atom + 945GC chipsets vs Atom + nVidia Ion chipset power consumption graphs-

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2765/12

Atom with a passive cooled CPU + active cooled chipset cause it was a Power Pig!

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2765

Neat way for intel et. al. to dispose of old nasty chipsets, while making noises about 'power consumption'. The trick worked though.

I dont recall ever seeing a setup like that from any major manufacturer, or even in the shops. Quite a few of them were built as custom systems though.

Right, I dont work for intel, so I could be wrong, but I think that the size difference doesnt really exist, and the 230 and N270 are the same CPU, just intel has turned different things on and off with the CPUs. Same situation as you'll find with current Xeons vs iX CPUs.

Hi there,

how so - or better: why not?
I have two such systems here, different boards, but very similar hardware. Both are built around an Atom 230 and a 945GC chipset. Both have an actual power consumption of about 20W when they're bored, and slightly over 30W under load, plus the HDD. Fanless, of course. Not bad, I think, compared to most other today's PCs.

One of the two I mentioned above was actually built the way I described it, and I purchased it at a mail-order outlet. Still working. :-) The other was traditionally built with a 145W internal power supply.
I have another, quite new, based on an AMD E350, but basically the same build: Small case, a small DC/DC converter board inside , and an external 50W brick outside. This one does have a CPU fan, but a quiet one, and is actually well below 30W while playing a DVD movie. Still has enough breath to drop to 50% clock rate occasionally during playback.

Of course, those gems are rarely sold at the big electronics stores. But I think that's because the clientele is different there. The big retailers like Media Markt or Saturn in Germany, or Radio Shack in the US, or whatever there is in other countries, address the average user who hasn't a profound technical background. These people have long been used to asking for irrelevant performance figures like MHz or GHz, and fast graphics for their games.

It's grotesque, but some people even brag about their PC having (needing?) a bigger power supply than yours. "Get lost with your ridiculous 120W - my computer has a 500W PSU!" :-(

[X] Doc CPU

64-bit without multi-lib (which I would not suggest) takes a little more disk space and a little more ram space than 32-bit.

64-bit with multi-lib takes more disk space and more ram space than without multi-lib.

If your system is seriously short of either ram or disk, that may be a good reason to choose 32-bit (assuming you also have a good reason for not upgrading to a decent amount).

What "seriously short" means in that context will vary depending on how you use the system. But ballpark, the threshold between "seriously short" and OK should be somewhere in the 50GB to 300GB range for disk and somewhere in the 0.5GB to 1GB range for ram.

Beyond that, I don't know of significant issues in the plan of running a few (wine or native) 32 bit applications on a 64-bit Linux. I use only 64-bit Linux myself and occasionally run 32-bit wine or native applications and don't see any problems that seem to be due to the choice of a 64-bit OS.

Hi there,

of course it never hurts to have plenty of space available, but ... 50GB disk space and more?? What are you going to fit into this space? Despite my 40+ years, I may still be a teenager with my learning curve of Linux, but with the systems I set up so far I never made the system partition (the root filesystem) larger than 16GB. And there was always a lot of that still available. Of course I'm assuming a separate partition for user data.

On the other hand, your assessment about RAM seems very niggardly to me. Sure, many Linux distros will work with as little as half a gig of RAM, but for a contemporary distro, I would estimate that as the acceptable minimum for an installation with no GUI (possible to get away with much less, depending on your needs), and about 2GB for a full-fledged X server and desktop.

[X] Doc CPU