64 bit? [LWN.net]

64 bit?

Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:19 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
In reply to: 64 bit? by felixfix
Parent article: The second OpenOffice.org 2.0 beta

As far as I know that is currently true, but I also don't think it's a big deal. Running a 32-bit application on a 64-bit system means that the 32-bit application is somewhat slower than it would be if compiled natively, and it also means that you have to install 32-bit libraries. Generally, neither matter on a 64-bit system for office applications. There are many low-capability 32-bit systems where not requiring a lot resources matters. But if you're using a 64-bit system today, it's because you want the extra performance for an application that needs it, which isn't the office suite.

It'd be ideal if they made it compile natively on 64-bit, if they haven't already; that would be a minor improvement in system administration (because they'd have fewer libraries to update). But it's very minor; I'd prefer that they work out the remaining bugs first, release it for real, and then make minor improvements like that later.

(Log in to post comments)

64 bit?

Posted Aug 30, 2005 17:56 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

the problem isn't the speed, it's the need to install a full set of 32 bit libraries just for the one program to use.

this is especially bad on some distros (Debian) where you end up having to create a chroot environment to run openoffice in.

64 bit?

Posted Aug 30, 2005 18:06 UTC (Tue) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link]

My experience of installing the 32-bit OOo on 64-bit Debian and Ubuntu systems is not that it works fine, but rather that it aborts. However I have just installed the 2.0 Beta 2 from Ubuntu Breezy and it works at least superficially. That's a nice improvement.

64 bit?

Posted Aug 30, 2005 19:09 UTC (Tue) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]

But if you're using a 64-bit system today, it's because you want the extra performance for an application that needs it, which isn't the office suite.

No, it's because I chose an inexpensive (~$2K) alpha workstation with the best performance/price about six years ago, and that's what sits on my desk. I run Debian, and all of my applications and libraries run about as well on my alpha as on i386 -- EXCEPT OOo. Why should I have to spend another thousand dollars for a new machine just to run an office suite, when the old one works perfectly well?

I don't feel it's my "right" to run the same apps on 64-bit as others do on 32-bit. On the other hand, it's a bit arrogant and presumptuous of people like you -- and the OOo devs -- to dismiss us 64-bit folk, instead of chastising the authors of bad code!

(No, I haven't tried to fix it, though I have fixed other software over the years from gnome-pim to gnucash to mozilla to run on PPC, alpha and ARM...)