Kubuntu 32 or 64bits?

Originally Posted by Doc CPU Of course I'm assuming a separate partition for user data.

Of course I'm not assuming a separate partition for user data, or if you have one I'm talking about the size of the whole drive, not the size of just the installed software.

I tend to install whatever packages I think I might need and/or whatever packages I want to try. I don't want to waste time cleaning up packages I think I might not be using. I put some effort into cleaning up the services I never use that cost time on every boot up, but none into cleaning up packages that just waste disk space. So I may be used to more disk space consumed by installed software than you might have. I also have a 500GB drive on the smallest Linux system I ever use, so outside of theoretical discussions in a forum, I don't even think about running Linux in 50GB of disk space. If 64-bit multi-lib costs a few GB of disk space compared to pure 32-bit (which I think it does with a moderate number of packages installed) that can matter if you have 50GB total and doesn't matter if you have 500GB total.

I wasn't trying to set exact levels for when the extra disk/ram matters in the choice of 32-bit vs. 64-bit, just communicating the fact that there is some such level and the fact that the level is below what are currently ordinary amounts of disk or ram.

I also wasn't estimating the level of ram or disk that would be comfortable for a modern distribution. I was estimating the level at which the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit-multilib could be a significant factor. Since that difference is smaller in ram than in disk, it is reasonable that you might need to already have an uncomfortably small amount of ram before the difference matters, but you might have a comfortable amount a disk where the difference still matters.

Hi there,

Originally Posted by johnsfine Of course I'm not assuming a separate partition for user data

alright, so you're not.
I've been used to having OS+software separated from data since the early 90's, even back in the days with DOS, much more so with Windows. It rarely ever occurs to me that someone might mix that together in one partition. That was a maintenance issue with DOS and Windows, and even though it's not that crucial with Linux, I still hold on to that habit, if only for the sake of my own feeling of tidiness.

Originally Posted by johnsfine I tend to install whatever packages I think I might need and/or whatever packages I want to try. I don't want to waste time cleaning up packages I think I might not be using. I put some effort into cleaning up the services I never use that cost time on every boot up, but none into cleaning up packages that just waste disk space.

We're obviously different in this point. I'm very picky about what I install and what I don't, and keep the portfolio of installed packages down to the necessary minimum. I do try out one or the other program; but if I find that it doesn't satify my demands or expectations, I remove it again. That way, even a "full" install of Mint Maya/64bit (i.e. complete with everything I think I need) weighs in at hardly more than about 10GB for the OS partition, IIRC, which I chose to be 20GB in size.
I have tons of unnecessary stuff on my data partition, though.

Originally Posted by johnsfine I also have a 500GB drive on the smallest Linux system I ever use

I have a 1GB SD card on the smallest one I use. ;-)

Originally Posted by johnsfine I wasn't trying to set exact levels for when the extra disk/ram matters in the choice of 32-bit vs. 64-bit, just communicating the fact that there is some such level and the fact that the level is below what are currently ordinary amounts of disk or ram.

Okay, then I misunderstood you with that one, sorry. It looked to me like a recommendation.

[X] Doc CPU

On an i5, I'd go 64-bit.

I had a Dell desktop that ran 64-bit Windows Vista just fine, but didn't like 64-bit Linux (32-bit Linux was ok), but I've never encountered anyone else with that problem.