Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

[perknh]

Arch Linux pulls the plug on 32-bit

By Alex Campbell

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3164876/linux/arch-linux-pulls-the-plug-on-32-bit.html

I'd say this is more of a disappointment than a surprise.  I have a soft spot in my heart for old computers, and with the help of PCNetSpec, AndyInMokum, VinDSL, and several others here, we've all kept my friend's 11 year-old Dimension 3000 going strong after it retired from its Windows XP days.  What this article is saying to me is that Peppermint 7 will probably be that last Linux distribution that computer has.  This news saddens me.  Over the years I've grown quite fond of that old, tough and loyal, desktop computer. 

[PCNetSpec]

Nope, Peppermint 8 will also VERY likely have a 32bit version too.

In fact as far as I know Ubuntu aren't phasing out 32bit until 18.10 .. so there'll likely be 32 bit versions of Peppermint 9 and 10 too.

I say "likely" because at the rate app devs are dropping 32bit versions of their apps there may not be much point to a 32bit OS soon.


source (which may or may not be correct):
https://itsfoss.com/ubuntu-32-bit-support-drop/

[rjm65]

I think someone should re think this, because there are people like me for example who have 4 or more machines that are used daily that will not run 64 bit because they are 32 bit only processors....  I personally was shocked they were only 32 bit considering they are all dual core machines and I don't consider dual cores to be old and ready for the scrap heap so hopefully someone will keep 32 bit going....  for at least another 15 years....   LOL   

[scifidude79]

Maybe we'll finally.... finally get Steam 64-bit.  Buwahahahahahahaha!!  No, seriously, maybe they'll do it.  Of course, it's also only ever been guaranteed to work with Ubuntu, which Mark just said isn't dropping 64-bit for at least over a year. 

Otherwise, stuff like this doesn't really affect me.  I do feel sorry for people who need that support.

[perknh]

Nope, Peppermint 8 will also VERY likely have a 32bit version too....I say "likely" because at the rate app devs are dropping 32bit versions of their apps there may not be much point to a 32bit OS soon.

&

The i386 archive will continue to exist into 18.04 and flavours can continue to elect to build i386 isos. There is however a security concern, in that some larger applications (Firefox, Chromium, LibreOffice) are already presenting challenges in terms of applying some security patches to older LTS releases. So flavours are being asked to be mindful of the support period they can reasonably be expected to support i386 versions for. --John Paul

Thank you for that, PCNetSpec.

Thank goodness we have Peppermint 7 on his computer now.  As long as his computer hangs in there, my friend and neighbor should be good until April of 2021.  We had to give up Opera and Chrome on his computer, but, on this old Dell, 32-bit Firefox flies.  However if support for 32-bit Firefox starts waning, all bets are off.  There's Yandex browser, which I really like, BUT there's a tense relationship between the US and Russia right now.  And, at the end of the day, these high tech companies almost always do what their government's tell them to do.  And who knows what that will be?  So, without a safe and well-supported browser, this vintage computer will become essentially worthless anyway.

I personally was shocked they were only 32 bit considering they are all dual core machines and I don't consider dual cores to be old...--rjm65

Neither do I.  I love that Dell Dimension 3000 that Peppermint brought back to life.  Unlike most things today, it wasn't built for obsolescence.

perknh

[jlschwartz]

Perknh,

Slimjet still has a 32 bit browser and works very well for me.  You should try it.  As far as Arch is concerned, it doesn't matter whether it's 32 bit or 64 bit I'm staying away from it.  I tried Manjaro, OB Revenge, Antergo, and others and they always break at some point for me no matter what I do.  Peppermint is the way to go.

[scifidude79]

I think someone should re think this, because there are people like me for example who have 4 or more machines that are used daily that will not run 64 bit because they are 32 bit only processors....  I personally was shocked they were only 32 bit considering they are all dual core machines and I don't consider dual cores to be old and ready for the scrap heap so hopefully someone will keep 32 bit going....  for at least another 15 years....   LOL   

I didn't even realize they ever made 32-bit dual cores.  After all, 64-bit single core processors existed before dual cores. (didn't they?)

In my opinion, a computer is only ready for the scrap heap when it stops working.  No need to fix what's not broken.  I don't get this have it a few years and then replace it when it works just fine trend that the world seems to be in right now. 

[VinDSL]

I don't consider dual cores to be old and ready for the scrap heap {...]

Gaming machines and number crunchers aside ...

Dual cores run just fine.  Really, I think it's more of a matter of processor speed than anything.  Buy the top-of-the-line model (fastest CPU), new or used, 2-8 cores, and they're all gonna fly.

I had a friend that worked at the Intel Chandler Campus (fab).  He's in jail now for stealing CPUs off the production lines.  The idiot took whole trays dumped them in the trash, came back at night, recovered them from the dumpster and sold them on the black market.  LoL !   

He told me the CPUs all came off the same line.  Some of the CPUs ran faster than the others, even though they were made in the same batch.  That is, some CPUs tested out faster than others, so they would simply mark them accordingly.  Some ran shittier than others, for lack of a different term, and they were marked with a lower speed.

Anyway my dual core laptop was the fastest machine in the house, until I bought the i5 desktop and i7 lappy.  To tell you the truth, there isn't an ounce of difference, in performance, between the lot.  They all scream !

Single core ... meh !  They're all past their prime, IMO.   

[rjm65]

I didn't even realize they ever made 32-bit dual cores.  After all, 64-bit single core processors existed before dual cores. (didn't they?)

Apparently they did because I have 4 of them IBM T60 Laptops my kids is a 1.8ghz, 2 of them are 2.0ghz, and the last one is 2.126 ghz...
If you try to install 64bit it comes right up and says its 32bit....  What I found to be funny was they are all maxed out at 4 gigs ram and they originally came with windows xp 32 bit which from what I understand the 32 bit winders os's can only use 3 gig, In fact when I had 4 gigs in it and installed winders 7 it said it was using 3 gigs plus 100 megs of the 4 gigs so i removed and replaced the one chip with one gig chip to make it total out too 3 gigs, cause i thought it was a waste of that last gig...
I'll come back and post the inxi on them so you can see...  they are lightning fast running linux... 

[PCNetSpec]

Yeah IIRC there were some late "Pentium4" (netburst) dual cores and a few early "Core" architecture (yohan) dual cores that were 32bit only.

Everything AFAIK after Yonah was 64bit .. though sometimes they may be on a motherboard with a 32bit UEFI BIOS, meaning they ARE 64bit capable, but require a 32bit bootloader (which most distros don't have on the 64bit ISO).

[rjm65]

Here is the inxi and processor info on the t60... 

Spoiler (click here to view / hide)

[close]

Link to cpu specs:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_Duo/Intel-Core%20Duo%20T2600%20LF80539GF0482M%20(BX80539T2600).html

[scifidude79]

One thing to remember is that desktop processor technology has more or less stagnated in the past 6+ years.  With the decline of the desktop, today's dual cores aren't much more powerful than the ones being sold 10 years ago.  It didn't really hit me until I was looking at new tech and going "wait, these look about the same as the processors I looked at nearly 5 years ago."  Not a whole lot has changed.  In fact, the only desktop tech that has really continued to move forward is graphics cards, due to the demand of modern games.  Of course, laptops still haven't gotten to the point of where desktops were before the decline and the push for tablets and phones.  So, even today's laptops come processors like 1.4 GHz dual cores, which is probably a bit less powerful than the dual cores some of you are running from 10+ years ago.  The only difference is, modern ones will be more efficient, thus faster.  But, that's not to say that a processor from back then isn't still powerful enough to get the job done today.

Last week, I was running my old Intel Pentium dual core on my LGA775, and that thing was churning away beautifully on Peppermint.  Yet, according to *some* companies, (Apple, Microsoft) a processor that old is ready for the scrap heap.  Like hell.

I didn't even realize they ever made 32-bit dual cores.  After all, 64-bit single core processors existed before dual cores. (didn't they?)

Apparently they did because I have 4 of them IBM T60 Laptops my kids is a 1.8ghz, 2 of them are 2.0ghz, and the last one is 2.126 ghz...
If you try to install 64bit it comes right up and says its 32bit....  What I found to be funny was they are all maxed out at 4 gigs ram and they originally came with windows xp 32 bit which from what I understand the 32 bit winders os's can only use 3 gig, In fact when I had 4 gigs in it and installed winders 7 it said it was using 3 gigs plus 100 megs of the 4 gigs so i removed and replaced the one chip with one gig chip to make it total out too 3 gigs, cause i thought it was a waste of that last gig...
I'll come back and post the inxi on them so you can see...  they are lightning fast running linux...

Heh, interesting.  I now know they made 32-bit dual cores.

[PCNetSpec]

Yeah the T2600 was one of the "Yonah" Core Duo's (Not Core2 Duo, which are ALL 64bit) I mentioned.

[EDIT]

Or put another way .. "look aint I clever"

[perknh]

Perknh,

Slimjet still has a 32 bit browser and works very well for me.  You should try it.  As far as Arch is concerned, it doesn't matter whether it's 32 bit or 64 bit I'm staying away from it.  I tried Manjaro, OB Revenge, Antergo, and others and they always break at some point for me no matter what I do.  Peppermint is the way to go.

Hi jlschwartz,

I forgot all about Slimjet.  That's a good idea to keep in mind.  Thanks.  As for Manjaro I always get strange error message when updating it for the first time.  It's a warning about some loop created between two files (or programs) that are both depending upon each other at the same time.  It's a bug that hasn't been fixed for over a year now.  No, pound for pound, I've never seen any Linux distribution come close to Peppermint for either functionality or support.  And I consider both functionality and support to be equally important when considering what distribution to run.  Peppermint wins in both categories hands down.

@scifidude79, rjm65, and PCNetSpec

I hate builtin obsolescence, but I understand that development continues; and, whether I like it or not, some things are going to by the wayside.  This is the natural course of things.  But what causes the steam to come out of my ears is artificial obsolescence.  I don't know if there's such a term already out there, but I consider it to be when the manufacturer arbitrarily decides to stop supporting and updating a program even though the hardware is still perfectly fine.  I'm thinking about Android here.  I hate buying new hardware (Android phones) every two or three years because the manufacturers refuse to support newer versions the kernel.  What a waste of perfectly good devices.  This one of many reasons why I stopped using a smartphone.  This practice burns me up.