Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

[bark_bark_bark]

I want to see if anyone does this.

[Flash]

I don't install them but I do use them, by booting them from multisession DVDs. Didn't think of that, did you?

[darrelljon]

What would be the point?

[Flash]

For me the point was to try out the new Puppy without making a commitment, maybe try some program that only came with that particular Puppy. Whether it was 64- or 32-bit didn't make any difference to me.

[EdD]

Yep. both....on the same hard drive, but at different times. The 32 bit version of Mint Petra sucked, so I dumped it and installed the 64 bit version. That gave me a better idea of how Mint performs. I dumped it and cleaned my spare drive the same day.

Puppy for me. Maybe I'll try Fat Dog on this new machine.

[gcmartin]

Happy new Year @bark_bark_bark.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you ask this to glean reasons why community members have done this in the past.

This does NOT usually occur in Puppyland because PUPs are usually aimed at one platform or the other. When Puppy was first started by @BarryK, 64bit PCs did not exist.

PC hardware architecture started with 8bit then moved quickly to 16bit. From there it remained until 32bit architectures came along. There it remained until 64bit, now ubiquitous, arrive. All along the way, people have argued the benefit.

Today of the primary CPU architectures, including for ARMs now showing up in platforms, 64bit has become the standard in business/consumer marketplace.

My reasons for having used 32bit AND 64bit on same PC(s)
In my years, my answer is yes, as I have been with various teams where analysis has been provided to validate what vendors were saying about their products...32bit vs 64bit.

Also, over the years Tom's Hardware website has provided some of the most extensive reporting on their findings of benefit.

In assisting anyone/everyone, I have merely tried to match their needs against their hardware. PC speeds have become so blindingly fast and RAM so easy to add, that today, for me, I select based upon the application the PC will be used for, and not concern whether its 32bit/64bit. If the distro/vendor offers, I will use the one which matches the hardware it will be used on.

Hope this helps what I think you're after.
P.S. Is this question a part of a class you're enrolled?

[bark_bark_bark]

Simply quoting your question,

[ardvark]

No, the computers I install Puppy on have always been 32 bit.

Regards...

[wboz]

my computers are modern enough to run 64 bit, but to be honest with something like Puppy I don't bother. the 32 bit version are likely to be better tested and I don't value the minimal speed increase. this is because i use mine only for a very small set of stuff (primarily web based work). also because, i have 4gb of ram so the primary benefit of 64 bit is not relevant.

I like Puppy a lot but I do not consider it a "full" distro in the sense that you might install Ubuntu and boot to it every time. Part of this is due to my having laptops - I don't want the stick coming out the side and maybe damaging my last remaining USB port; plus the computer came with an OS.

If I were installing a Linux distro as the primary OS - I've been toying with the idea of buying a small barebones box - then yes, I would go for the 64 bit. I'd see no advantage to installing both.

[Ted Dog]

heard that JamesBond got 64 and 32 bit to work side by side in a sandbox type of install. 64 bit programs use its filesystem and 32bit system uses its filesystem. Not only are the installed together they even run at the same time..