With Ubuntu 17.10 discontinuing the 32-bit desktop ISOs, here is the last time it makes sense comparing the Ubuntu 32-bit (i686) versus x86_64 performance.
If you find yourself needing an operating system that respects your privacy, you cannot go wrong with Tails. The live Linux-distro can be run from a DVD which is read-only, meaning there is less of a chance of files being left behind. Heck, Edward Snowden famously used it to protect himself when shining a light on the overreaching US government.
There are a lot of ways to count, but when it comes to computers there is only binary: 0 and 1. Each one is a considered a "bit." That means for 1-bit computing, you get two possible values; 2-bit means four values; then at 3 bits you double that to eight (2 to the third power, aka 2 cubed).
I have to admit this isn’t something I’ve thought about in a long time, but I peeked around and lo and behold Microsoft’s latest OS—Windows 10—is being offered in a 32-bit version. Microsoft says it has at least 71 million 32-bit users still (as of 2014), and didn’t want to leave them out in the cold, or thrust them into the open arms of Cupertino (headquarters of rival Apple). Given this situation, I figured I’d explain the main difference between the two.
Every year or two we run >32-bit vs. 64-bit Linux benchmarks. While x86_64 Intel/AMD hardware has been extremely common for quite some time, we continue to be amazed at the number of people still running an i686 Linux distribution on x86_64 hardware.
I’ve been reading some of the commentary on my post about 64-bit Visual Studio which is really about 64-bit vs. 32-bit generally using Visual Studio as an example and I have to say that for the most part, I’m pretty disappointed with the arguments being put forth in favor of 64-bits.
Most computers today ship with a 64-bit version of Windows, and often a minimal amount of RAM. This brings into question how well these systems perform. This is especially true when users want to run their legacy 32-bit software on these new computers. This is especially true when users want to run their legacy 32-bit software on these new computers.
I was excited to try the new 64 bit Firefox as I read the news that it was released as a final version. After all, I’m using 64 bit Windows for some years now, and browsers have been very late to release their 64 bit versions. Read on how I compared if Firefox works better in 32 or 64 bit and see the numerical results below.
Mozilla Firefox has yet to release an optimized edition of the famous web browser for 64-bit Windows. However, users can resort to browsers built by other developers that focus on this aspect.
A few days ago, Gabriel Aul, head of the Windows Insider Program, confirmed in a short tweet that Windows 10 would also launch with a 32-bit SKU, thus putting an end to some weird rumors pointing out that Microsoft wants to step away from this architecture type with the new OS version.
We are often asked “I have a 64-bit Windows computer. Should I install 32-bit or 64-bit components?” Our recommendation is generally to install 64-bit components on a 64-bit OS. For KeyServer in particular though, there are a few reasons that would force you to use 32-bit components on a 64-bit OS though and we’ll cover these below.
Given yesterday's story about Ubuntu 16.04 LTS potentially being the last 32-bit release if that proposal goes through, and given the number of people still running 32-bit Linux distributions on Intel/AMD hardware that is 64-bit capable, here's some fresh x86 vs. x86_64 benchmarks using Ubuntu 14.10.
Canonical provides 32- and 64-bit images for Ubuntu and it's been like this for a long time, since the first edition that came out in 2004. Now, an Ubuntu contributor is looking to change this by proposing that Canonical drop 32-bit support after the release of 16.04 LTS.
Samsung launched its latest flagship Galaxy Note 4 phone at IFA 2014 a few weeks ago, and the handset has been said to be running on an Exynos 5433 chip (although Samsung has been quite restrained with the details).
The Intel Atom Bay Trail tablets have been out for a few months already, but none of the hardware vendors is providing 64-bit firmware builds for them, which means that you can't install any Linux distros.
Most PC’s shipping these days are rocking 64-bit versions of Windows 8.0 or 8.1. If you’re not sure how to check which bit architecture you have (32-bit or 64-bit) in Windows, there’s a quick command line trick for that. Today I want to show you something peculiar that you may not have noticed but once I bring it up you’ll certainly have questions.
When it comes to desktop and laptop computing, 64-bit is pretty much a given, though many apps are still stuck in 32-bit limbo, running quietly alongside their 64-bit siblings. What’s really nice is that you don’t even notice the difference whether they’re 32-bit or 64-bit, the apps just work. Now, 64-bit Androids are here – sort of.
Google ChromeA few weeks ago, Google released the 64-bit version of the popular Chrome browser and promised increased stability, security, and speed. We were curious to learn how many of these promises are true, and share what you gain and lose when using the 64-bit version of this browser. We have used this browser for a couple of days and ran several benchmarks. Here's what you get when using the 64-bit version of Google Chrome instead of the 32-bit version.
Recently you might have heard of 64-bit smartphones and the fact that Android L now supports 64-bit architecture. For those not familiar with the term and don’t know what 64-bit is, we are going to take a look at why you should care and why there is such a huge difference between a 64 bit and non 64 bit smartphone.
A new round of statistics provided by Valve for its own Steam gaming platform shows that last month Windows 8.1 64-bit adoption has grown and more gamers actually moved to this particular operating system.
Page 1 of 3