MX Linux Forum

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:06 am**

How many of you still need to use a 32 bit distro?
Can you please post in the thread what hardware (or software) you use that requires 32 bit?

AFAIK there's no immediate plan to drop 32 bit support, antiX is pretty much committed to develop a distro for older hardware and we are piggybacking on whatever they are doing so we are most likely going to support what they support for the foreseeable future, I'm asking this because I want to understand what's the situation. I know that many people still download the 32 bit ISO, but I wonder how many do it because they are used to install 32 bit or they really need to run a 32 bit distro on their computer.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:20 am**

Voted yes, my issue is with an OKI MFP - it will not work on a 64 bit install.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:55 am**

Not running 32 bit myself, but a check on my Torrent uploads of the past two weeks shows a roughly 10:8 ratio in favour of 32.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:03 am**

I voted no but I have 64 bit capable CPU and more than 3G of RAM for my daily computer.

Altho you ask "need" I would like to add that just because members have a 64 bit capable hardware....they can still use 32 bit if they understand they won't be able to use more than 3G.

but that is not the reason why I am posting either...heh heh....to the best of my knowledge .....a 32 bit package should be smaller than a 64 bit package.
so if you have very limited bandwith, 32 bit becomes an option.

I have unlimited but my download speed is shocking, something like 83 % of all other users of my ISP have faster speed.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:18 am**

I voted Not Sure. My desktops are 64-bit with more than 4GB memory and I've been installing 64-bit from the start. I still have 32-bit on an old Aspire One netbook and although I haven't used it in the last year, I may bring it out of retirement soon.

Phil

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:23 am**

I have installed the first generation MacBook (Core Duo).
However, My main usage is changing to 64 bit PC, MacBook will not upgrade from MX-16.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:24 am**

I voted 'No' because I don't need 32-bit. The only two 32-bit machine I have are kept for testing 32-bit distros!

I am surprised by how many people are downloading 32-bit, based on my torrenting:

pop.png

Chris

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:59 am**

My father's Acer Aspire One Netbook would still need 32-bit. Right now it's on MX14 but eventually that will need to be upgraded.

My computers are 64-bit.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:19 am**

The 43,000 + downloaders from SF and torrents are running almost exactly 2:1 x64:386 at this point; total number of 386 downloaders there is around 14,000.

BTW, Adrian: nice use of the Twitter account to duplicate this poll! Wonder if a poll can be done of the Facebook group...yup, dead easy. Created it here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/6653008 ... 157897200/

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:24 am**

I have several machines (mostly netbooks) still in use which need 32-bit distros , and even my more recent machines run well enough with 32-bit OSs.

How much dev. effort would be saved by ditching 32-bit?

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:32 am**

7 votes on FB in the first half hour, one with this interesting comment:

I've migrated from Linux Mint Xfce to MX Linux as primary distro on most of my personal machines in large part due to better performance on older hardware (which includes a number of 32bit machines).

EDIT: now 12 votes, running 2:1 "yes." Comment:

That is the only reason why I use MX Linux

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:40 am**

If Debian 9 drop support on 32-bit, what options MX have?

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:31 am**

The stats for the various polls seem fairly consistent.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:33 am**

nearly All of my PCs are 32bit based PCs.

sure - - I'm aware that the future is 64bit,
but for the near future, at least, I'll need a 32bit O/S.

the main issue, will be - if Debian itself drops 32bit support,
but, how likely is that ? in the near future, anyway.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:37 am**

@asqwerth: not sure about that:

--Facebook now has 19 votes, 3:1 "yes."
--Here 16 votes, 2:1 "no"
--Twitter 7 votes, 2:1 "yes"

Probably different audiences to some extent, and numbers still low.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:40 am**

asinoro wrote:If Debian 9 drop support on 32-bit, what options MX have?

We obviously won't be able to support it, I doubt though, Debian is pretty much an "Universal OS", Ubuntu will probably drop it first. Arch already said they won't support it.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:45 am**

I have a stack of older laptops that are 32 bit and need it. I loan them out to people wanting to try it. Most people I come incontact with that I have an opportunity to introduce them to MX with one of their unused PC's is always 32 bit. Canning 32 bit for me would force me to another distro for those systems.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:51 am**

How much dev. effort would be saved by ditching 32-bit?

That's not why I asked, I was just curious considering Arch move not to support it anymore, from my point of view the effort is minimal, I do the monthly snapshots so there's a bit of duplication to do a 32bit ISO, but it takes me, I don't know, 20 minutes a month and a bit extra bandwidth. As for building 32 bit debs it's easy to boot to a virtual machine and build it in that. Sometimes I'm lazy, I did the MX Workbench initially only in 32 bit but when somebody requested I built a 64 one in less than half an hour.

Canning 32 bit for me would force me to another distro for those systems.

Again, that's not the plan, just seeking info.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:55 am**

Specs on my gear needing 32 bit

viewtopic.php?p=327537#p327537

I am probably not the only MX user in this boat either.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:57 am**

I have 9 computers, personal and preschool.

2 * 64 bit:
1 with 4 GB running MX16_x64 and 1 has MX15_386.

7 * 32 bit:
2 netbooks with MX16_386 and 5 with MX15_386.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:06 am**

All my workstations are AMD 64 bit.

But I do have an old Acer laptop, with a Celron.
It requires 32 bit.

So, answer yes.

(Though I know I could use AntiX)

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:27 am**

Jerry3904 wrote:@asqwerth: not sure about that:

--Facebook now has 19 votes, 3:1 "yes."
--Here 16 votes, 2:1 "no"
--Twitter 7 votes, 2:1 "yes"

Probably different audiences to some extent, and numbers still low.

Yep, the poll figures are ever changing. It's almost 50-50 here now.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:49 am**

I still ned 32bit for my old Toshiba laptop and an even older HP OmniBook 6000

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:51 pm**

Slowly switching to 64 bit machines here. About half 32bit still.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:22 pm**

A computer is a terrible thing to waste.

Have a Macbook and Macbook PRO (Core Duo), so I voted yes.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:46 pm**

Macbooks though can do 64bit, right?

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:03 pm**

It seems pretty clear already that many MX lovers need a 32bit version.
So do we have a problem if/when MX17 uses Stretch?

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:06 pm**

GuiGuy wrote:It seems pretty clear already that many MX lovers need a 32bit version.
So do we have a problem if/when MX17 uses Stretch?

Nope

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:05 pm**

32 bit is what brought me to MX after it was recommended in a Manjaro forum thread.

I have an i686 laptop that works fine for what I use it for, so I'd like to keep it alive for as long as possible.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:51 pm**

If there were any doubts this thread makes it pretty clear that we'll still need to continue to support 32bit, not sure how other distros (Arch comes to mind) plan to drop the official support.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:04 pm**

And even stronger evidence with the 30 responses on Facebook, where 2/3 of the respondents answered "yes"

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:21 pm**

Atom (pre-64 bit): two netbooks, two thin clients
64-bit capable AMD, but soldered 1GB mem/not upgradeable: thin client
Pentium M: IBM t43

The t43 and limited mem AMD machines could be retired, but the Atom thin clients run 24/7 desktop systems.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:58 pm**

Adrian wrote:Macbooks though can do 64bit, right?

Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, or Xeon processor are 64 bit.

Also have a Mackbook and Mackbook Pro with the Core 2 Duo.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:00 pm**

Adrian wrote:If there were any doubts this thread makes it pretty clear that we'll still need to continue to support 32bit, not sure how other distros (Arch comes to mind) plan to drop the official support.

If they do, it'll just steer more users this way

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:56 pm**

mmikeinsantarosa wrote:
Adrian wrote:If there were any doubts this thread makes it pretty clear that we'll still need to continue to support 32bit, not sure how other distros (Arch comes to mind) plan to drop the official support.
If they do, it'll just steer more users this way

Not really surprising, MX has gained a reputation for working well on older hardware.

Posted: **Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:12 pm**

I support a couple of hundred users still. Whilst I have moved to 64bit for my own computing, I still have around 30-35 'clients' who only have 32bit hardware. I, therefore, keep an old Asus AJ6C 32bit only as a functional option to support these folk with. I would like to see the option remain for a while longer, but, it becomes a simple question of usage of limited resources I would think. Time marches on!

greywolf.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:41 am**

I voted yes. I've got a number of hyperthreading P4's with 4 gb of ram which are still fairly quick but alas 32 bit.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:26 am**

I have an Athlon64, but my wife's laptop has a 32-bit Celeron, whom I finally got off XP.

I'd think it should be mighty easy to share files between two MX-16 computers, so I must be doing something stupid. Wouldn't be the first time...

I'll figure it out...or I won't...

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:00 am**

Leo wrote:I have an Athlon64, but my wife's laptop has a 32-bit Celeron, whom I finally got off XP.

I'd think it should be mighty easy to share files between two MX-16 computers, so I must be doing something stupid. Wouldn't be the first time...

I'll figure it out...or I won't...

Might help with figuring that out.

https://www.youtube.com/user/runwiththedolphin

I know he covered file sharing on one of his videos.

Posted: **Wed Mar 08, 2017 12:28 pm**

Here you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp95SzXLp7Q

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:18 pm**

My machine is 64bit, but my mom's old R61 is running MX16 32bit.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:24 pm**

R61 seems perfectly capable to run 64-bit.
https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/pd013965#arc
https://ark.intel.com/products/29759/In ... 00-MHz-FSB

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:38 pm**

the last time I attempted a 64bit usb installed it was a no-go... so....

[EDIT] I was WRRRRRRR... I stand corrected! I must have confused it with some other past machine

I just tried my latest 64bit snapshot for my Dell e6220 and it did play fine on my mom's machine... SORRY about that. Thanks for causing me to upgrade my thinking!

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:41 pm**

I'm on my 3rd 64 bit machine since 2009, all purchased new and run on Mepis and now MX, the climate and the power system dont treat computers well.

That aside, for nearly 20 years, Ive built up functioning machines from junk so cost has been ziltch. As time has moved on the software and the hardware have advanced and thus my rebuilds have advanced but as there is a not a ready supply of old used gear here so it got to the stage here where I had to can everything and move on.

I have a newly installed 64bit MX-16 and the only reason Ive set up a 32bit version is that I cobbled up a 32bit motherboard I came by into a box and setup that had been 64bit. The purpose being as a back up to my 64bit and as something for my wife and grandchildren could tinker on which has worked out very well with MX15 non PAE. If I had come by a second hand 64bit board I wouldnt be pursuing 32bit. The 32bit install of MX-16 on the old computer is working beautifully by the way and almost seems as fast as the 64bit one despite the difference in ages of the motherboards and chips.

So for now, yes to 32bit for those that may not be in a position to get hold of 64 bit machines, but as time moves on, will 32bit become a dinosaur like my old Amiga 1200 I used from 1998 to 2007 as my main machine. By about 2004 It just became impossible to keep up with the advances in technology

Posted: **Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:24 am**

Hi everybody!
I still have a netbook and a VIA thin client which are 32bit only. I already switched from Manjaro to antiX NET on the VIA machine, will probably switch to it on the netbook, too, if Arch will have dropped 32bit and the community repo will not provide a reliable substitute.
I think Linux distros should drop 32bit so the users get a "kick ass" incentive to migrate to BSD or other alternative free OS.

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:42 pm**

Need... no, not really. I have a few 64 bit capable machines.
Want, yes, as I don't see any reason to stop using my 32 bit machines...

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:00 pm**

Can I broaden the question a bit to those that use 32 bit?

How many 32 bit users *need* the non-pae kernel?

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:42 pm**

I need non-pae for the old processor in my backup/wifes machine, but the motherboard on that machine could be changed if the current one fails. A bit of a throw of the dice really because I would replace the board with a much newer second hand one. Basically I'm using non-pae because its available

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:45 pm**

i use a 32 bit non pae mx distro, so migrating to something else will be a problem.
but i will not complain if that is not supported, i will find my way somehow. I prefer you, the developers , to keep up with something you want and can make as good as you want rather than run here and there to cover everything

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:41 pm**

No worries, like I said as long as there are users and Debian supports 32bit (and I don't think they will drop support anytime soon) we'll support it.

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:09 pm**

Several of my machines are old as dirt so I will use the non pae kernel so long as you provide it.
However I am only buying 64 bit desktop computers now so in a few years I may not have need of it.
The wife keeps prodding me to get rid of the old stuff.
That might be a factor. LOL.
I try not to admit to being a junk collector but the evidence says otherwise.
Still playing with 32 bit tablets.

Posted: **Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:28 pm**

I guess there are still quite a few of the thinkpads with the pentium M running, which iIrc, need a non-pae, or fake pae.
The other manufacturers probably used them too, but their users might not be as special as the thinkpad guys?

Posted: **Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:28 am**

the real question is... does anyone have 32 bit-only hardware yet run more than 4gb of ram? All of my 32bit only gear doesn't support that much ram anyway.

incidentally, I voted yes for the 32bit, but I do not need a pae kernel. All my 32bit-only stuff is limited to 2gb of ram. Even the old Pentium couldn't take more than 4gb IIRC, and I retired it long ago.

Posted: **Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:01 am**

The man with the Dell Mini 9, he says yes!!!!!

Posted: **Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:25 am**

to quote:

Even the old Pentium couldn't take more than 4gb ...

and add a newer video card on AGP with 512 Mb RAM like Radeon 16xx Pro AGP or something equivalent which to equals 4.5 Gb meaning PAE became neccessary to use all that the old-horse could offer...

Edit : As long as major distros keep 32bit versions for any or all reasons considered by their developers I don't quite get it why MX should do differently...

Posted: **Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:12 am**

Looking into the future, the vast majority of users and potential users needing a 32 bit OS alternative to Windows will be the proud owners of Atom n2xx and z5xx based PCs, primarily early netbooks; ALL of the later Atoms were 64bit capable.
At the moment, based on personal experience, MX16 runs fairly well on 2GB equipped n270 netbooks by Acer, eMachines, and ASUS. Well enough that there is little justification to downgrade one's user experience with the more rudimentary GUIs of AntiX, even though it IS speedier--menus open near instantaneous, as opposed to a 0.75 second delay with MX, for example.
If one deliberately shoots oneself in the foot by refusing to replace the nearly useless 1GB DDR-2 RAM card with a ~$15 2GB card, then there is some justification for living with AntiX, though the menu opening delay with MX is still not much more than a second. Videos greater than 360p are not playable, 272p is recommended. Along with a more rudimentary web browser than Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, or Opera.

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:43 am**

What was ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ said here fits me to a T. I will be taking my touchscreen intel n270 M & A companion netbook on my West Virginia motorcycle trip and getting online using my Verizon phone in the Hill Billy mountains. Using my 4G as a hotspot.

SMTube for youtube. So I'll have to move on on my atom netbook <antix> if MX decides it is too much work for maintaining 32 bit gear.

I'm flexible though. So no biggy.

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:58 am**

rokytnji.1 wrote:What was ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ said here fits me to a T. I will be taking my touchscreen intel n270 M & A companion netbook on my West Virginia motorcycle trip and getting online using my Verizon phone in the Hill Billy mountains. Using my 4G as a hotspot.

SMTube for youtube. So I'll have to move on on my atom netbook <antix> if MX decides it is too much work for maintaining 32 bit gear.

I'm flexible though. So no biggy.

Where you going? Wv is home. ..

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2017 11:19 am**

dolphin_oracle wrote:
rokytnji.1 wrote:What was ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ said here fits me to a T. I will be taking my touchscreen intel n270 M & A companion netbook on my West Virginia motorcycle trip and getting online using my Verizon phone in the Hill Billy mountains. Using my 4G as a hotspot.

SMTube for youtube. So I'll have to move on on my atom netbook <antix> if MX decides it is too much work for maintaining 32 bit gear.

I'm flexible though. So no biggy.
Where you going? Wv is home. ..

OT --> I'm interested also. Lots off nice routes/roads... etc,that will keep you (for lack of a better word) attentive at the path/scenery.
(Done)

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:26 pm**

Canaan Valley West Virginia is where I will be the weekend of July 6. I'll be leaving the last day of June and mosey my way up there. Give me a PM and I'll drop by D.O. Unless you don't want me to scare the kids.

http://canaanvillage.com/

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:54 pm**

I skied in Canaan Valley...

Posted: **Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:09 pm**

rokytnji.1 wrote:Canaan Valley West Virginia is where I will be the weekend of July 6. I'll be leaving the last day of June and mosey my way up there. Give me a PM and I'll drop by D.O. Unless you don't want me to scare the kids.

http://canaanvillage.com/

I would love it, but I no longer live there. I got an uncle close, and canaan is great country.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:43 am**

I've got a very old (circa 2004) HP desktop. I use it for the occasional office docs, email and web browsing. It works so well on lightweight 32 bit distros that I can't justify the expense of replacing it!

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:17 pm**

I'm just seeing this thread, but I do at times need a 32bit version of MX-Linux to run in VMs, as well as just 32bit packages for things like Steam.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2017 1:53 pm**

Also late to the party. My trusty old Toshiba Satellite A105 just keeps plugging along. I've been running straight Debian on it. Am in the process of switching it over to MX.

Thank You.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:39 pm**

This is one OS where contrary to other bits seems to run better on older hardware as newer releases arrive. - mike

Posted: **Tue Aug 15, 2017 3:12 pm**

In this moment I am working on a 32 bit distro installed on 64 bit machine with 4 MB ram ! (Some days before I installed MX 32bit on 2 old 32bit laptops and I decided to try 32bit version on 64 bit machine - boot and run from SD Card ).
Result ? MX 32 bit uses less memory (maybe half of 64 bit ) and seems very good responsible.For me it 32 bit version is worthy for one that use internet, office,email and playing songs.

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:09 am**

Yes of course we need 32 bit version and i am big fan of MX and i am using 32 bit with 1 gb ram with compiz this is actually cool it is actually working great than windows or another linux so don't plan anything like stopping support for 32 bit...

Posted: **Wed Aug 16, 2017 6:21 am**

penguin wrote:In this moment I am working on a 32 bit distro installed on 64 bit machine with 4 MB ram ! (Some days before I installed MX 32bit on 2 old 32bit laptops and I decided to try 32bit version on 64 bit machine - boot and run from SD Card ).
Result ? MX 32 bit uses less memory (maybe half of 64 bit ) and seems very good responsible.For me it 32 bit version is worthy for one that use internet, office,email and playing songs.

Lol 4MB Ram!!!

Posted: **Sun Aug 20, 2017 3:22 am**

Lol 4MB Ram!!!

At a computer trade show in 1981, Bill Gates .... "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Seriously now.On last week I run MX Linux 2 GB on an 10 years old laptop HP -32bit and I did notice using of swap.4 GB for Linux is enough also if you run it as live distro. As I said , 32 bit use less memory.

Posted: **Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:25 am**

I just remastered the 32-bit MX to mimic the operation of Cloudready for a school to resurrect some v old laptops that cloudready won't run on. Works a treat.

Posted: **Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:02 pm**

I have an old baytrail 2-in-1 (Asus T100CHI) that originally came with win8.1 (32 bit), a 32 bit UEFI/BIOS and 2BG RAM. It will run 64 bit OS's, but most distros' installers need tweaking to boot and usually require manually installation of grub after installation. 32 bit generally installs with a lot less hassle.

Asus and others made a ton of these devices and they should be just about ready for a second career with linux, pending just a few more updates to the kernel.

Posted: **Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:19 pm**

I have an ASUS 1000H EeePC and another laptop which are just fine but do not support a 64 Bit system.

Posted: **Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:28 pm**

I have 3 32 bit 2G laptops I hand out as loaners to anyone that wants to give MX a try. I have no 64 bit loan-able hw.
- mike

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:01 am**

so, I've just, finally, managed to get MX-17 /32bit - - for the usual testing,
- before upgrading some Laptops, to this version.

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:39 am**

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:40 am**

Yes , I have an old Acer laptop that needs 32 bit.
I retain that machine for exclusively banking and financial transactions, no e-mail or browsing for security reasons.

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:06 pm**

I have to use 32bit Linux on most aging netbooks. It makes them relevant again. I prefer MX ar Antix but recently had a problem with an eeePc that only had a 4GB Phison flash drive. I could get to the installation screen that allows me to put in my profile configuration but it would go no further.

I assumed I was asking too much of a modern polished distro to live on such a small space so I ended up putting a Debian net install on it and just built it up w/ the important things until I reached site of the end of the drive. I certainly learned a lot. Not sure I want to do it again, heh, heh.

Thanks so much for keeping the Mepis/Antix/MX flag flying ladies and gents!

The Tramp

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:56 pm**

Still supporting 32bit on 2 netbooks & 4 aging desktops in preschool. The netbooks with MX-16 which will probably run MX-17 soon.

The desktops with a remastered MX-16 that is slimmed down plus Gcompris, ChildsPlay, Tuxpaint, MrPotatoHead, etal. The school is offline so MX-16 for Kids should last longer than the hardware. With time and Internet will build a version on 17 which should run longer than the hardware

Posted: **Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:15 pm**

All other things being equal, on a 64bit capable netbook (any Atom cpu other than 32bit only n270 or n280, or z525), running 32bit vs 64bit MX uses 60-100 MB less RAM at idle.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:40 am**

I have installed both 32 and 64 bit. Especially MX Linux has a Pae 32 bit version. Sincerely, I cannot understand why a ordinary user needs a 64 bit version. 32 bit reacts faster and is lighter. In my opinion , MX Linux 16 - 32 bit was better polished comparing MX Linux 17.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:20 am**

MX Linux 16 - 32 bit was better polished comparing MX Linux 17.

How so, did we use better polish? :) There is no difference in how we build the 32bit ISOs, only that we removed non-PAE kernels which we no longer support.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:59 am**

Could there be fundamental changes in Debian 9 that make it less friendly to 32-bit machines? Apart from using more resources to run.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:58 pm**

I have 4 older 32 bit laptops I use as test loaners that are all running MX 17 flawlessly right now.

Posted: **Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:29 pm**

My main (Samsung, Intel Core i5 CPU) laptop is 64-bit. But I run MX-16 32-bit on a couple of older Dell laptops, one of which needs the non-pae version. I notice that developers of many distros are phasing out 32-bit; I understand why (up to a point!). But as one of the benign effects, and plus points, of Linux is that it enables older computers to keep going, I'm glad and grateful that a 32-bit version of MX is still on offer.

Posted: **Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:34 pm**

Need it, possibly no.

Use it, quite possibly yes.

I have a couple of Atom netbooks that I might just bring back from the dead with it.

Posted: **Thu Jan 04, 2018 4:22 pm**

bbfuller wrote:......
I have a couple of Atom netbooks that I might just bring back from the dead with it.

MX runs very well on eeePC901.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:54 pm**

Dear MX Linux Team,
I NEED 32 BIT. My name is Michael and I'm 65 years young. I have to say that I'm somewhat new to the whole Linux experence. I came accross Linux when I needed to upgrade some 32 bit computers from windows 7. They both did not have the hardware required to run windows 8.1 or 10. After what I learned about Linux [ it's only been about 6 months ] I LOVE LINUX. I have downloaded so many versions/distro's, I have lost count. The versions that work good with my laptop's including the following [ Panasonic Toughbook CF-29 ] is MX Linux, Linux Mint Xfce, and Antix. All these at present support 32 bit. In my research, there seems to be thousands upon thousands of computers with 32 bit architecture still in perfect working order. It would be a shame to toss these when they could work for someone in need. That's why I'm trying to start an outreach program [ free of charge ] revamping older computers for low income familys and especially students. Something is better than nothing. I hope 32 bit will be around for a long time.
Thank you
Michael

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:52 am**

If it weren't for 32-bit distros I wouldn't have a working computer at all right now, so yes I need them. My 10 year old Atom CPU-powered netbook is my only back-up computer right now, as I had a PSU failure on my 64-bit desktop on Saturday evening. If it wasn't for a 32-bit version of MX I wouldn't even be here saying this.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:42 am**

@JayM
+1
My backup is a 32 bit EeePC 1005HA.
It runs MX very well, while antiX uses fewer resources; I like having the same OS on both laptop and netbook.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:07 am**

My only laptop is an old Thinkpad T43, and it can only run 32bit distro. So, a big thank to all the dev of MXLinux for still developing the 32bit edition.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:55 am**

Even today, we still have one old 32bit desktop left working after replacing XP with Linux.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:27 am**

I also think that it's a big advantage to be still supporting 32bit as -almost all- governments in the world have thousands of (totally; millions of) 32bit pcs.. (which I hope to be turned into Linux) .. and which they wouldn't want to throw in the rubbish box when still working and enough for daily operations.. writing, printing, sending messages etc..

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:37 pm**

Adrian wrote: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:06 am How many of you still need to use a 32 bit distro?
Can you please post in the thread what hardware (or software) you use that requires 32 bit?

Hi,
FI ... that requires 32 bit : ... my MSI eepc U123, and for some tests with VirtualBox.

Code: Select all

inxi -M
Machine:
  Type: Laptop System: MICRO-STAR product: MS-N033 v: Ver.001 serial: <root required> 
  Mobo: MICRO-STAR model: U-123 v: Ver.001 serial: <root required> 
  BIOS: American Megatrends v: 4.6.3 date: 05/06/2010

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:07 am**

Did not see this thread until this morning.

I do need 32 bit distro. I use Panasonic Toughbooks and have a few 32 bit only units. CF-U1 is a full rugged tablet that will only run 32 bit OS, tried to boot off my MX19b3_64 usb stick and got an error message that the unit could not run 64 bit OS. Same with the CF-29's I have, 32 bit only.

I am not alone in the need for 32 bit OS. There is a group of Toughbook users on the Panasonic section of Notebook Review forums that use older Units that require 32 bit. At the moment we are trying to get full functionality back for our older units. By that I mean that somewhere between kernel 2.6.32 and kernel 2.6.33 we lost the use of the top PCMCIA slot. We ( the group @ NBR) are working with the kernel devs to see if we can get the top slot working again.

There is a lot of life left in these Toughbooks and it would be a terrible pity if they had to end life because there was no OS to run on them.

The ability to run Linux on older hardware was what brought me to Linux in the first place. Please maintain the 32 bit version.

With MX-19b3_32 there was no worries about pae. Booted off the stick to the desktop on the U1 and the 29's. Nice.

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:35 am**

No, I don't need a 32 bit distro now. Even if MX follow the trend, drops 32 bit support and become 64 bit only, I'm still fine, my system is already 64 bit, my VirtualBox guests are also 64 bit. I don't worry about obsolete 32 bit hardware yet, if Linux no longer supports them, OpenBSD and, defintely, NetBSD, would continue to support them.

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:23 pm**

I still use an old asus eee box which has a 32 bit atom and 1 gig of ram. Running Debian with no gui.

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:59 pm**

Anticapitalista posted the same question at the antiX forum. Same answer here: I run a laptop and three desktops as 32-bit systems. Vintage machines but there's nothing I want to do that I can't do on them. Without a 32-bit OS, they'd go into a landfill.

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:05 pm**

Same as many of the above posters... I have an old Acer laptop that is 32 bit.

Without MX, I would probably scrap it. My PuppyLinux chops are fading...

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 pm**

Fedora is going to discontinue 32 bit... Just to assure people are worried we are probably going to keep doing 32 bit as long as Debian keeps doing it.

Posted: **Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:48 pm**

Adrian wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:44 pm Fedora is going to discontinue 32 bit... Just to assure people are worried we are probably going to keep doing 32 bit as long as Debian keeps doing it.

Good news. Thank you Adrian.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:41 am**

I have one machine left stuck on 32-bit, it's a MacBookPro 1,1 from 2006. When the magic smoke finally leaves it, I won't need 32-bit Linux anymore.

(I think I have 32-bit MX on my son's netbook, but that was personal preference and not a requirement. I will probably reinstall it with 64-bit MX 19 when it comes out.)

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:33 am**

I think it's great that MXlinux is still providing 32-bit support, while every other distro has already dropped it. This for sure is a great marketing campaign to promote MXlinux to the world, and would bring more users that has 32-bit systems and been abadoned by their distro. With this in mind I assume there will be more users adopting MXlinux.

Posted: **Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:49 am**

I have three 32 bit only computers.
One is a candidate for a stripped down antiX install (a 20 year old Thinkpad).
The other two are newer and more powerful but among the last of the 32 bit built.
I would prefer MX on at least the desktop, could go antiX or MX on the other old laptop.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:24 pm**

Linux was know as "an old computer refresh", was working in many architectures: ARM, x86, x64, MIPS, PowerPC and others.
Since march 2020, a list of some popular 32-bit distros (at the moment):

Debian 10.3.0 (MX Linux is Debian based, until last Debian 32-bit release then?)
Kali Linux 2020.1
MX Linux 19.1
Linux Mint 19.3, 20 version is 64-bit only
Ubuntu 19.10, 20.04 LTS Plan and build selected 32-bit i386 packages. Latest 32-bit Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS

There are no Libreoffice 32-bit since 6.3 in 2020 (i got installed on mint 19.3 and there are no more updates, 6.4 is near and the 7 version this year).

There are 32-bit latest Windows version install disc or ISO

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:52 pm**

rsotol028 wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:24 pm
There are no Libreoffice 32-bit since 6.3 in 2020

Not true.

https://packages.debian.org/buster-back ... e/download

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:47 pm**

rsotol028 wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:24 pm Linux was know as "an old computer refresh", was working in many architectures: ARM, x86, x64, MIPS, PowerPC and others.
Since march 2020, a list of some popular 32-bit distros (at the moment):
Debian 10.3.0 (MX Linux is Debian based, until last Debian 32-bit release then?)
Kali Linux 2020.1
MX Linux 19.1
Linux Mint 19.3, 20 version is 64-bit only
Ubuntu 19.10, 20.04 LTS Plan and build selected 32-bit i386 packages. Latest 32-bit Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS
There are no Libreoffice 32-bit since 6.3 in 2020

There are 32-bit latest Windows version install disc or ISO

Can add antiX, BunsenLabs, Sparky, Slackware, Slax, Bohdi, LMDE, Q4OS, Tumbleweed SUSE

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:49 pm**

I don't need 32-bit support, but I see that 61% do. I think MX Linux and antiX Linux should continue supporting 32-bit systems for now. A compromise is to drop it for MX Linux but keep it for antiX Linux.

It makes sense for Ubuntu and its derivatives to drop 32-bit support. Any 32-bit-only computer is MUCH too slow for that high Ubuntu overhead. Installing any current Ubuntu-based distro on a 32-bit-only computer (well over 10 years old) would be like installing a small 4-cylinder engine under the hood of a hypermassive 1975 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:05 pm**

I've found that all of my old 2006 / 2010 curb find computers support 64 bit Linux without problems although at the time of there birth they came with 32 bit Windows XP and Windows Vista.

With my upgrading of memory from other curb find computers 64 bit is not a problem so Linux giving new life to old computers still holds true in my case.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:12 pm**

seaken64 wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 10:47 pm
rsotol028 wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:24 pm Linux was know as "an old computer refresh", was working in many architectures: ARM, x86, x64, MIPS, PowerPC and others.
Since march 2020, a list of some popular 32-bit distros (at the moment):
Debian 10.3.0 (MX Linux is Debian based, until last Debian 32-bit release then?)
Kali Linux 2020.1
MX Linux 19.1
Linux Mint 19.3, 20 version is 64-bit only
Ubuntu 19.10, 20.04 LTS Plan and build selected 32-bit i386 packages. Latest 32-bit Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS
There are no Libreoffice 32-bit since 6.3 in 2020

There are 32-bit latest Windows version install disc or ISO
Can add antiX, BunsenLabs, Sparky, Slackware, Slax, Bohdi, LMDE, Q4OS, Tumbleweed SUSE

Gentoo, Void, Devuan, Alpine.... etc etc

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:24 pm**

WoW! 61% says yes so far. This surprises me. 64bit arch has been around for some time now and the lower cost of new systems I can't believe there is such a demand for 32bit. I understand there may be a lot of them still out there but this suggest it may be on the rise re-purposing older hardware. My current laptop is an Acer. It's 3-4 years old now and originally ran Win10 poorly for my Mother-in-law until it started to freeze up on suspend. I ended up giving her another laptop and install MX on this one. No more problems.
The cost of upgrading may be prohibitive to many people but realistically my current printer cost more than my last three laptops. The last laptop I bought used at a "computer shop" for $200 with no OS. It was 3-5 years old then and I ran it for about 8-10. I recently installed MX19 on it and gave it to a friend. He's happier than a pig in poo. My point is all these laptops have been 64bit. No point in going back to 32bit now.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:32 pm**

I use the small foot print low on system resources lightweight 64 bit Linux distros because I use old computers.

I just like old computers built to last unlike the disposable garbage they make these days.

I'm a desktop user the Wife and kids are the laptop users.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:20 pm**

eriefisher wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:24 pm WoW! 61% says yes so far. This surprises me. 64bit arch has been around for some time now and the lower cost of new systems I can't believe there is such a demand for 32bit. I understand there may be a lot of them still out there but this suggest it may be on the rise re-purposing older hardware....

My point is all these laptops have been 64bit. No point in going back to 32bit now.

Not all newer hardware is 64bit, there are a lot of really cool x86 Single Board Computers (SBC) out there, more and more coming out every day.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:53 pm**

SwampRabbit wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:20 pm Not all newer hardware is 64bit, there are a lot of really cool x86 Single Board Computers (SBC) out there, more and more coming out every day.

They why would a 32bit OS be such an issue if there is an audience for it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:01 pm**

eriefisher wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:53 pm
SwampRabbit wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:20 pm Not all newer hardware is 64bit, there are a lot of really cool x86 Single Board Computers (SBC) out there, more and more coming out every day.
They why would a 32bit OS be such an issue if there is an audience for it.

Ummm, I didn't ever say that was an issue with it, and pretty sure my statement reinforces the need for it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:17 pm**

SwampRabbit wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:20 pm Not all newer hardware is 64bit, there are a lot of really cool x86 Single Board Computers (SBC) out there, more and more coming out every day.

If you are taking about the SBC such as the PI those come with there own OS from what I've seen.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:51 pm**

SwampRabbit wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:01 pm
eriefisher wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:53 pm
SwampRabbit wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:20 pm Not all newer hardware is 64bit, there are a lot of really cool x86 Single Board Computers (SBC) out there, more and more coming out every day.
They why would a 32bit OS be such an issue if there is an audience for it.
Ummm, I didn't ever say that was an issue with it, and pretty sure my statement reinforces the need for it.

What I meant was that if sales for these boards are good(assuming they are) Then why would so many OS's and applications(Chrome) drop support for 32bit. I tell you if I could figure out how to get MX on an old Android box I have I would.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:03 pm**

eriefisher wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:24 pmNo point in going back to 32bit now.

"it works for me!"

proprietary software is all about forcing people to throw out good software and good hardware. one of the last straws with windows for me was when someone i knew had a perfectly good printer and the upgrade to xp simply dropped support. this model wasnt ancient, they just decided to make it worthless.

dropping hardware support drops the value of both existing hardware and software. though it increases the value of NEW hardware, which is why corporations do it. when distros do this, they shaft users. since i still have some good 32bit hardware that i like using, and other people still use 32bit hardware sometimes, AND since 32bit distros work on both 32bit and 64bit systems for the most part, i focus exclusively on 32bit distros. someone has to support this stuff.

if we only care about mainstream users, we might as well use windows. or ubuntu. or a mac. these proprietary-like attitudes continue to try to take over the free software ecosystem. "just upgrade your hardware." EXCUSE ME? dont get me wrong, nobody is obligated to maintain multiple archs. however, the excuses for dropping support (as though its a good thing overall) are appalling. all it means is you care about fewer users. thats your right-- dont sugarcoat it. you just dont care about them anymore.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:28 pm**

eriefisher wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:51 pm What I meant was that if sales for these boards are good(assuming they are) Then why would so many OS's and applications(Chrome) drop support for 32bit. I tell you if I could figure out how to get MX on an old Android box I have I would.

Why? Because they don't care, because they are stupid, or a combination of both? I dunno....

But I do know that its not going away any time soon, look at what happened when Ubuntu tried (and failed) to drop 32bit support fully?
I bet a lot of users migrated to other Distros because of it. Don't alienate users... it never goes over well.

The only reason I see for dropping 32bit support is laziness in not wanting to maintain it.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:41 pm**

SwampRabbit wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:28 pmThe only reason I see for dropping 32bit support is laziness in not wanting to maintain it.

even i wont go that far. its the first thing i think of, and its partly true.

to be fair, lots of distros find themselves cutting various corners due to lack of resources. this is one of those corners. its a major sacrifice, and what irks me most is they try to play it off as some kind of "smart move" thats "for the best." they even pretend the people who are affected by it barely exist. thats a huge insult, basically a smear to people who may have loved the software previously. i lose respect for people that do this-- unless its true: "there are only 5 people downloading it. we sincerely apologise to each of them."

if i dropped an architecture, i would do it with an apology, an (honest) appeal for people to stand up now or in the future to help support it-- these appeals are too often dishonest, circular arguments that drive away people who do stand up, then say "nobody stood up to keep it supported, so we had no choice really". and i would admit that "this is a corner being cut-- not ideal at all".

instead, they promote the decision. they dont just sugarcoat a bad thing, they pretend that its better to make an ecosystem that (just like the proprietary corporate ones) tell users when to throw away their stuff and buy more. its bad. but sometimes they really do have no choice. just be honest. dont make it an opportunity for nasty propaganda in favour of e-waste. it really only profits big corporations. the "benefits" to users are nonsense. also, if we are honest, sometimes there are alternatives to dropping support. not looking seriously for those is truly lazy.

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:58 am**

I'm guessing that MX/antiX Linux won't drop 32-bit support until Debian does. I'm guessing that Debian will support 32-bit systems for at least 10 more years. By the time MX/antiX Linux drops 32-bit support, those 32-bit-only machines will be ancient.

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2020 11:46 am**

anticapitalista wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:52 pm
rsotol028 wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:24 pm
There are no Libreoffice 32-bit since 6.3 in 2020

Not true.

https://packages.debian.org/buster-back ... e/download

It's confusing, at least for inexperienced people. For what I understand, Libo binary is not provided anymore for Linux 32 bit by the Document foundation (or whoever that creates Libo, I don't know) but every distribution can build its own. So 32 bit support has not been dropped. Am I right?

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:06 pm**

jhsu802701 wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:58 am I'm guessing that MX/antiX Linux won't drop 32-bit support until Debian does. I'm guessing that Debian will support 32-bit systems for at least 10 more years. By the time MX/antiX Linux drops 32-bit support, those 32-bit-only machines will be ancient.

I am tracking this as correct last time it was stated.

Posted: **Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:03 pm**

anticapitalista wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:52 pm
rsotol028 wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:24 pm
There are no Libreoffice 32-bit since 6.3 in 2020

Not true.

https://packages.debian.org/buster-back ... e/download

Thank you for the link.

Just, for those who may not know or to make it easy for average users, is it possible to include them in MXPI (if not Stable, Debian Backports tab) .. ( Though that one is for MX 19.x , currently on MX 18.3 Debian Backports there's 6.1.5-3 .. )

Edit: Sorry, yes, it's 6.1.5-3 in Debian,too: https://packages.debian.org/stretch-bac ... e/download

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:16 pm**

+1 32 bit MX-19

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:04 pm**

32 bit as well i still run into i686 machines (not regularly) that require a fresh install of Mx Linux of course. I would halt the development and just provide app and security updates to make the OS stable which it is currently. On older machines i end up disabling features that are sweet on a fully loaded 64 bit rig but increasingly bogging down the granddaddy 32 bit Pc's. I also realize there are other distros abandoning 32 bit I would just freeze keeping up with the 64 bit and coast sort of on the 32 bit I realize there are many who may have a super 32 build, but really 1998 - 2009 is what i see the most and to fix one to compete with 64 bit is ridiculous in conclusion i would be happy if this was the last release if was continued at a minimal level. I appreciate all your work just the same

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:15 pm**

Huckleberry wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:03 pm
anticapitalista wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:52 pm
rsotol028 wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 4:24 pm
There are no Libreoffice 32-bit since 6.3 in 2020

Not true.

https://packages.debian.org/buster-back ... e/download
I was using an i356 computer 3 years back, but it was broken now. There must be many i386 PCs still now.
Libreoffice is also available from https://packages.debian.org/ja/buster/i386/libreoffice

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:24 pm**

Thank you for the recent responses.

But this is an extremely old discussion and the stance of a 32bit/i386 version has not changed.

Not saying anyone should stop expressing this opinion on the matter, but if Debian, MX, or antiX reach the point again a new discussion will probably be started for it.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:48 am**

user-green wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:15 pm
Huckleberry wrote: Wed Apr 29, 2020 3:03 pm
anticapitalista wrote: Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:52 pm

Not true.

https://packages.debian.org/buster-back ... e/download
I was using an i356 computer 3 years back, but it was broken now. There must be many i386 PCs still now.
Libreoffice is also available from https://packages.debian.org/ja/buster/i386/libreoffice

Sorry, but, it seems you made a tiny mistake when quoting: (This part doesn't belong to me: "I was using an i356 computer 3 years back, but it was broken now. There must be many i386 PCs still now.
Libreoffice is also available from https://packages.debian.org/ja/buster/i386/libreoffice ")

:)

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:28 am**

Mx_Linux_2020 wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2020 6:04 pm 32 bit as well i still run into i686 machines (not regularly) that require a fresh install of Mx Linux of course. I would halt the development and just provide app and security updates to make the OS stable which it is currently. On older machines, i end up disabling features that are sweet on a fully loaded 64 bit rig but increasingly bogging down the granddaddy 32 bit Pc's. I also realize there are other distros abandoning 32 bit I would just freeze keeping up with the 64 bit and coast sort of on the 32 bit I realize there are many who may have a super 32 build, but really 1998 - 2009 is what i see the most and to fix one to compete with 64 bit is ridiculous in conclusion i would be happy if this was the last release if was continued at a minimal level. I appreciate all your work just the same

Geese why even bother, If you're a greeny, scrap your old relic and melt down the gold pin ... and buy your self a eBay dell with i5 4xxx for $50 or even i5 3xxx are only $20
even for watching youtube or web browser, you're going to be so slow,
$35 raspberry pie would be faster lol

the power consumption is going to be higher per year then a newer dell

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:36 am**

Not everyone in the world has money to buy newer computers. Not everyone wants to throw working computers in the garbage bin just because they're 32-bit. This was covered in this topic months ago IIRC. Also see post #128.

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:34 am**

I think everyone who still has a 32bit system will vote for it, those with 64bit rather against it.
I have a current 64bit system, but I will not participate in such a vote.
It is not my place to vote on the needs of others, which do not affect me in any way.

MX Linux Forum

How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?

!

YES !

Re: How many of you need a 32 bit distro?