[Knitebane]

In both cases, I think the 32 bit versions run better though. 64 bitters can use more refinement.

I've been running Ubuntu 64-bit on my desktop for about a year now with few problems.

But then I chose my hardware carefully. If you build a box using hardware that relies on manufacturers to provide your drivers then you can have issues with 64-bit. People with wireless cards with the Atheros chips have had lots of problems. I use cards with the fully documented RALink chips and haven't had any problem at all.

The last stumbling blocks were 64-bit flash and a 64-bit java plugin for Firefox. Both of those finally showed up late last year.

[Tarpon]

Yeah, I have been running 64 bit for a while now, but the 64 bit versions of Windows 7, Ubuntu and XP, while not showing any real show stoppers, seem less peppy regardless what I happen to do. I think it's definitely a software tuning issue. It also uses more memory, over twice what the 32 bit uses.

I just built this 6700 as a test box to see how a faster machine worked out. Wanted to test out VMs and RAID to see if there was any real advantage to the user. So far, inconclusive.

Yes, flash is the big problem right now, but using the wrapper works acceptably.

I have stuck with wired cards for now, but you are right about tested wireless cards and driver problems have been dogging the 64 bit switch.

I still see 64 bits as not ready ‘yet’ for prime time, and for most people, probably not needed either.

I have put Ubuntu on many systems and so far, no security problems at all. I recommend people do their banking online with a separate Ubuntu account they use only for banking and other security site issues, to keep down the possible problems that may develop with daily use.

[zeugma]

Do you know which manufacturers us the RALink chips?
The intel-based wireless in my dell work laptop also works pretty good.