I think at this point it is emerging a misunderstanding. I think what you're really saying is that a 64-bit system has advantages over a 32-bit, and you are absolutely right, but this does not solve your dilemma. Currently there are still many applications (if not the majority) that are being developed and maintained almost exclusively for 32-bit architectures, a clear example are Skype and Steam (until recently, both Windows and Ubuntu strongly recommend using the 32-bit versions of the operating system to conserve such compatibility). Because of this Wine and PlayOnLinux only have full support for this architecture. As you will understand, the shift to native 64-bit applications will be a very slow and gradual process (process that very likely will take many years) and will depend almost entirely on the good faith of its own developers. Currently only it makes sense to use a 64-bit if you have the assurance that not need 32-bit applications, otherwise, it is preferable to use a 32-bit system (for convenience). Since as mentioned previously, there is no real advantage to use a pure 64-bit system. In your particular case, I see that you could find it much more troublesome use this type of system that one of 32 bits, is what I can do for youslientwind wrote: How would I know which of the experts is right? But the majority still seems to agree that a 64bit operating system is better suited to a 64bit CPU.
.Have you seen that does matter?slientwind wrote: Graphics heavy 3D Games, multitasking, image/video editing... Does it really matter? What would you prefer: a system that barely meets the actual needs, or one that is prepared for whatever the future may bring?
Again, I think it makes more sense to use a 32-bit OS.slientwind wrote: I only need Wine and Playonlinx, do you mean those? I know this sounds lame, but should I go through all that trouble just for that?
PlayOnLinux is just an "application" (is really a chunk of scripts) that helps simplify the process of configuring Wine when installing Windows applications on GNU/Linux. Wine is the key word, not misunderstand me but from what I've read the future of this does not sound very promising.slientwind wrote: I could just as well try and aid the Salix devs make the Wine 64 bit version, right?
Believe it or not, a user of GNU/Linux becomes more cautious for this kind of thing and as a rule, almost never resorted to this procedure. If the application is not in the repositories of the your distribution, then turns directly to your compilation. Absurd as it may be heard, this helps mitigate many headachesslientwind wrote: And Linux users never download such things? Yes, downloaded things are fewer, due to the distro taking care of the most common software needs, but still, there are actually cases where people download stuff even in Linux!
This you will check over time. Usually rolling release distributions are for people who have the time, desire, skills and experience to correct the flaws that very likely be presented. Slackware and Debian They are considered the most stable GNU/Linux distributions that there, both they share the slogan: "If something works well, do not touch it!", this is the key to its stability.slientwind wrote: That only says that the updates are done poorly, not that updates in themselves are bad. So all rolling releases are bad by definition? Not that I like rolling releases, I don't, but still, people using them are that much more prone to crashes and instability?
Malware writers generally focus on operating systems with greater market share (Windows and Android) and who want to reach as many users as possible. This sounds logical since currently developing malware is not something trivial. Moreover, GNU/Linux is designed to hinder the functions malicious applications could perform. Because of these aspects, GNU/Linux is not a priority target for malicious developers. GNU/Linux is not a priority for them to not be feasible. What I'm trying to say is that you should not worry too much about these aspects. If you upgrade your system whenever there is an update available and if you hear your judgment I assure you it will be very difficult to face a problem of this type.slientwind wrote: Sorry, I'm not sure. First, aren't some viruses hidden deep inside even a picture? Second, from say thousands of files, how could I quickly check for viruses faster than an antivirus does? Third, isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
Just a disclaimer: When I refire to bad Windows-like practices, what I wanted to convey is to do all that sort of thing is right or normal, but in GNU/Linux does not. Windows users need to do that for them as it is a poorly designed system, otherwise the Unix-like operating systems (like GNU/Linux). Please do not feel slighted, especially by what you are happening it is part of the natural process experienced by newcomers (it is a kind of reeducation). I know sometimes our answers may seem arrogant, but believe me, we just try to orient you in the best possible way for this transition period not be too frustrating (this does not mean that there is disconcerting). Unlike other forums of distributions for "newbies", most of the people who are here have many years of experience and it could hardly bad advice so do not hesitate too much about what they suggest to you.
Be sure to ask, that's the key!
Best regards.
