Actually the 32-bit version uses PAE, which is sufficient for home users:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension,


however 32-bit Ubuntu, still has its limitations, and is not the
native format for 64-bit processors.



On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:55 AM, HawkFest <email address hidden> wrote:
> I do not agree with SDonatas who states : "From present marketing
> perspective, maybe for new users 32 bit version would be better, just
> because it is less buggy (at least some people say, but I not feel that)
> and for 32 bit versions it is easy to install native codecs, flash,
> adobe air, restricted extras etc, But 64 bit is the future and therefore
> strategically this version is more important"
>
> I totally disagree : I much prefer honesty than misleading marketing
> one-liners.. Because here, you are putting the "manufacturer" or its
> marketing strategy at the center of interest, not the end-user. Remember
> that since several years, we've evolved to a "customer-centric"
> paradigm... Thus, I understand the reasons as Matthew Nuzum states "We
> don't recommend 64bit on desktops when the simplest user experience is
> desired". And I would add "when such a configuration would work
> flawlessly for any type of system, more over when assuming that many of
> the average desktop "John-Doe" user will not really know about its own
> system capability". As such, even "marketing-wise" it's better to
> recommend the 32bit version since it removes potential hassles and bad
> user experiences...
>
> However I MUST agree with the dilemma in regards to the wording itself :
> even if the "not recommended" has been removed near the 64bit selection,
> the word "recommended" cannot be used for the 32bit OS, since for many
> users having more than 4GB RAM, it's just a VERY bad recommendation (who
> would appreciate an OS ditching several Gig$ of RAM or CPU potential -
> and thus the user's money - in the toilet?)... IMHO, a LINK should be
> provided near this "recommendation" so as to clarify any doubt.
>
> Here's what such a "recommendation" could fall down to : if you [have or
> need or plan to have] more than 3GB RAM (say you often use GIMP or video
> encoding/creation tools), AND you have a 64bit processor AND you don't
> use a specific program known to have bugs under a 64bit OS, then go for
> that 64bit OS version. Else, or if you don't know ziltch about the
> later, you should stick with a 32bit OS.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/585940
>
> Title:
>  Text reads "not recommended" for 64-bit
>
> Status in Ubuntu Website Content:
>  Fix Released
>
> Bug description:
>  On http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download  it shows the
>  options for 32bit and 64bit
>
>  32-bit - Recommended for most users
>  64-bit - Not recommended for daily desktop usage
>
>  Why is 64-bit not recommended? I've used it for years and aside from
>  netbooks (whose users would most likely choose UNE) I don't know if
>  any computer released in the last few years that doesn't support
>  64-bit.
>
>  Unlike Microsoft's webpage for Windows 7, Ubuntu.com doesn't even an explanation as to the differences between 32 and 64-bit operating systems, nor how a user could tell if they can run it.
>  Apple even shows 64-bit as a positive bullet point in its Snow Leopard, why is Ubuntu treating 64-bit like a beta?
>
>  I understand there should be some precaution since the user may have a
>  computer that doesn't run 64-bit, but I think the wording "not
>  recommended for daily desktop usage" is poor.
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website-content/+bug/585940/+subscriptions
>



-- 
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net