MX Linux Forum

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@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.