I recently installed v.11.2 64 bit on a computer with 64 bit capability. Makes sense, right? My results were a slow operating system with many packages broken or undeveloped. My uneducated guess it that 64 bit versions are specifically meant for servers. Desktop users should probably use 32 bit versions since they have been developed more completely and do not need to worry about heavy system loading, etc. Just an observation. The 32-bit version works exceptionally well compared with the 64-bit version.
On 02/23/2010 07:26 PM, WhiteFox wrote:
>
> I recently installed v.11.2 64 bit on a computer with 64 bit capability.
> Makes sense, right? My results were a slow operating system with many
> packages broken or undeveloped. My uneducated guess it that 64 bit
> versions are specifically meant for servers. Desktop users should
> probably use 32 bit versions since they have been developed more
> completely and do not need to worry about heavy system loading, etc.
> Just an observation. The 32-bit version works exceptionally well
> compared with the 64-bit version.
This is not true. My 64-bit systems (2 in number) have no more problems than any
of my 3 32-bit systems. These 64-bit installations go back to 11.0. On my 64-bit
laptop, I also have one partition with a 32-bit system. The 64-bit binaries take
a bit more disk space, but the 64-bit data paths really move the data.
Most of the developers have 64-bit systems. I generally find more late-stage
bugs in the 32-bit version as there is less testing of that architecture.
+1
On my systems, 11.2 64bit loads and looks pretty, beyond that nothing works anywhere near as well as 11.2 32bit or 11.1 32/64bit. I can’t say what they have done but something serious changed between 11.1 and 11.2 as far as 64bit goes.