Comment 59 for bug 585940

Offering the most compatible one as the recommended one is fine by me.
But the current wording has a negative, bad tone to it. Saying that
64bit is not recommended just sounds wrong. I think it would sound a lot
better if it had a more positive spin to it like saying 32bit is
recommended, and perhaps not saying anything about the recommendation
status of 64bit. If a user is specifically looking for 64bit I'm sure
they would be a slightly more advanced user who would be able to handle
the very few setbacks of 64bit.

On 07/05/2010 09:04 PM, Seung Soo, Ha wrote:
> @merk
> well, I would point out that there are native flash plugins for most supported OS and versions
> (http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/, not listed but except for linux 64-bit, most 32-bit and 64 bit version of an OS(where applicable) are supported. Also, I can see that Palm webOS and Symbian™ S60 are supported too)
> But that is not the point.
>
> What I am trying to say is all mainstream computers that can run amd64 ubuntu (the average 'Joe' desktop) can run x86 ubuntu too. So its not about choice of hardware, but software.
> Considering that we are trying to appeal to a mass audience who may not understand the compatibility issues, why not offer the most compatible one as the most recommended one?
>
> After all, we are not forcing a decision between an IPhone and an
> Android are we?
>
>