Search Results

Search found 22709 results on 909 pages for '64 bit'.

Page 1/909 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • 64-bit 13.10 shows 1GB less RAM than 64-bit 13.04 did

    - by kiloseven
    Multiple 64-bit versions (Kubuntu, Lubuntu and Xubuntu) once installed on my ThinkPad R60 show 3GB of RAM, not the correct 4GB of RAM. Last week with 13.04, I had 4GB of RAM (which matches the BIOS) and this week I have 3GB available. Inquiring minds want to know. Details follow: Linux R60 3.11.0-12-generic #19-Ubuntu SMP Wed Oct 9 16:20:46 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux r60 free -m reports: _ total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3001 854 2146 0 22 486 -/+ buffers/cache: 346 2655 Swap: 0 0 0 . . . . . . lshw shows: description: Notebook product: 9459AT8 () vendor: LENOVO version: ThinkPad R60/R60i serial: redacted width: 64 bits capabilities: smbios-2.4 dmi-2.4 vsyscall32 configuration: administrator_password=disabled boot=normal chassis=notebook family=ThinkPad R60/R60i frontpanel_password=unknown keyboard_password=disabled power-on_password=disabled uuid=126E4001-48CA-11CB-9D53-B982AE0D1ABB *-core description: Motherboard product: 9459AT8 vendor: LENOVO physical id: 0 version: Not Available *-firmware description: BIOS vendor: LENOVO physical id: 0 version: 7CETC1WW (2.11 ) date: 01/09/2007 size: 144KiB capacity: 1984KiB capabilities: pci pcmcia pnp upgrade shadowing escd cdboot bootselect socketedrom edd acpi usb biosbootspecification {snip} *-memory description: System Memory physical id: 29 slot: System board or motherboard size: 4GiB *-bank:0 description: SODIMM DDR2 Synchronous physical id: 0 slot: DIMM 1 size: 2GiB width: 64 bits *-bank:1 description: SODIMM DDR2 Synchronous physical id: 1 slot: DIMM 2 size: 2GiB width: 64 bits dpkg -l linux-* returns: Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend |/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name Version Description +++-======================================-=======================================-========================================================================== un linux-doc-3.2.0 (no description available) ii linux-firmware 1.79.6 Firmware for Linux kernel drivers ii linux-generic 3.2.0.52.62 Complete Generic Linux kernel un linux-headers (no description available) un linux-headers-3 (no description available) un linux-headers-3.0 (no description available) un linux-headers-3.2.0-23 (no description available) un linux-headers-3.2.0-23-generic (no description available) ii linux-headers-3.2.0-52 3.2.0-52.78 Header files related to Linux kernel version 3.2.0 ii linux-headers-3.2.0-52-generic 3.2.0-52.78 Linux kernel headers for version 3.2.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP ii linux-headers-generic 3.2.0.52.62 Generic Linux kernel headers un linux-image (no description available) un linux-image-3.0 (no description available) ii linux-image-3.2.0-52-generic 3.2.0-52.78 Linux kernel image for version 3.2.0 on 64 bit x86 SMP ii linux-image-generic 3.2.0.52.62 Generic Linux kernel image un linux-initramfs-tool (no description available) un linux-kernel-headers (no description available) un linux-kernel-log-daemon (no description available) ii linux-libc-dev 3.2.0-52.78 Linux Kernel Headers for development un linux-restricted-common (no description available) ii linux-sound-base 1.0.25+dfsg-0ubuntu1.1 base package for ALSA and OSS sound systems un linux-source-3.2.0 (no description available) un linux-tools (no description available)

    Read the article

  • Running 64 bit Ubuntu distribution from 32 bit Ubuntu

    - by csg
    Related to this question How do I run qemu with 64bit processor on a 64bit machine?, I'm trying to run latest ubuntu 11.10 64bit distribution under Ubuntu 11.04 32 bit using qemu on a core2duo (64 bit cpu) machine, using following qemu parameters with no success. Error under qemu: "This kernel required an x86-64 CPU, but only detected an i686 CPU. Unable to boot - please use a kernel appropiate for your CPU" Isn't qemu suppose to emulate a 64 bit machine? I think I'm missing something, but I can't figure it out. qemu -cpu (kvm64|core2duo|qemu64) -boot d -cdrom ubuntu-11.10-desktop-amd64.iso qemu-system-x86_64 -boot d -cdrom ubuntu-11.10-desktop-amd64.iso Here is my uname -m i686 Here is my /proc/cpuinfo processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 23 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8400 @ 2.26GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 800.000 cache size : 3072 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 lahf_lm dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority bogomips : 4522.45 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management:

    Read the article

  • installing Ubuntu 32 bit and Lubuntu 64 bit with the same home directories

    - by rakesh
    Mine is a 64 bit machine and I had installed "32" bit Ubuntu to try it out and hence installed many apps and developed many things and configured it for many things. Now it seems that my laptop needs more resources as my development needs so much. My question is :to free up install Lubuntu "64" bit in other partition which uses the same home directory and apps and my development rendering my laptop to be faster than before. Is this possible ? Thanks in Advance.

    Read the article

  • cannot make ubuntu 64-bit v12.04 install work

    - by honestann
    I decided it was time to update my ubuntu (single boot) computer from 64-bit v10.04 to 64-bit v12.04. Unfortunately, for some reason (or reasons) I just can't make it work. Note that I am attempting a fresh install of 64-bit v12.04 onto a new 3TB hard disk, not an upgrade of the 1TB hard disk that contains my working 64-bit v10.04 installation. To perform the attempted install of v12.04 I unplug the SATA cable from the 1TB drive and plug it into the 3TB drive (to avoid risking damage to my working v10.04 installation). I downloaded the ubuntu 64-bit v12.04 install DVD ISO file (~1.6 GB) from the ubuntu releases webpage and burned it onto a DVD. I have downloaded the DVD ISO file 3 times and burned 3 of these installation DVDs (twice with v10.04 and once with my winxp64 system), but none of them work. I run the "check disk" on the DVDs at the beginning of the installation process to assure the DVD is valid. When installation completes and the system boots the 3TB drive, it reports "unknown filesystem". After installation on the 250GB drives, the system boots up fine. During every install I plug the same SATA cable (sda) into only one disk drive (the 3TB or one of the 250GB drives) and leave the other disk drives unconnected (for simplicity). It is my understanding that 64-bit ubuntu (and 64-bit linux in general) has no problem with 3TB disk drives. In the BIOS I have tried having EFI set to "enabled" and "auto" with no apparent difference (no success). I never bothered setting the BIOS to "non-EFI". I have tried partitioning the drive in a few ways to see if that makes a difference, but so far it has not mattered. Typically I manually create partitions something like this: 8GB /boot ext4 8GB swap 3TB / ext4 But I've also tried the following, just in case it matters: 8GB boot efi 8GB swap 8GB /boot ext4 3TB / ext4 Note: In the partition dialog I specify bootup on the same drive I am partitioning and installing ubuntu v12.04 onto. It is a VERY DANGEROUS FACT that the default for this always comes up with the wrong drive (some other drive, generally the external drive). Unless I'm stupid or misunderstanding something, this is very wrong and very dangerous default behavior. Note: If I connect the SATA cable to the 1TB drive that has been my ubuntu 64-bit v10.04 system drive for the past 2 years, it boots up and runs fine. I guess there must be a log file somewhere, and maybe it gives some hints as to what the problem is. I should be able to boot off the 1TB drive with the 3TB drive connected as a secondary (non-boot) drive and get the log file, assuming there is one and someone tells me the name (and where to find it if the name is very generic). After installation on the 3TB drive completes and the system reboots, the following prints out on a black screen: Loading Operating System ... Boot from CD/DVD : Boot from CD/DVD : error: unknown filesystem grub rescue> Note: I have two DVD burners in the system, hence the duplicate line above. Note: I install and boot 64-bit ubuntu v12.04 on both of my 250GB in this same system, but still cannot make the 3TB drive boot. Sigh. Any ideas? ========== motherboard == gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 CPU == AMD FX-8150 8-core bulldozer @ 3.6 GHz RAM == 8GB of DDR3 in 2 sticks (matched pair) HDD == seagate 3TB SATA3 @ 7200 rpm (new install 64-bit v12.04 FAILS) HDD == seagate 1TB SATA3 @ 7200 rpm (64-bit v10.04 WORKS for two years) HDD == seagate 250GB SATA2 @ 7200 rpm (new install 64-bit v12.04 WORKS) HDD == seagate 250GB SATA2 @ 7200 rpm (new install 64-bit v12.04 WORKS) GPU == nvidia GTX-285 ??? == no overclocking or other funky business USB == external seagate 2TB HDD for making backups DVD == one bluray burner (SATA) DVD == one DVD burner (SATA) 64-bit ubuntu v10.04 has booted and run fine on the seagate 1TB drive for 2 years.

    Read the article

  • Outlook opening link in IE 64-bit

    - by Ken
    I am running CRM 4.0 plugin for outlook 2007. When I open a link in outlook it launches in IE8 64-bit. This will not work because it appears some on the feature in CRM 4.0 do not work in IE 64-bit. The default browser on the computer was FireFox. I change it to IE 32-bit and it is still behaving the same. Does anyone have any ideas outlook why it is opening in 64-bit? Is there a way to force Outlook to use the 32-bit version?

    Read the article

  • MacBook Pro 5.5 32-bit or 64-bit 12.04 LTS

    - by Barkerto
    I'm currently running Ubuntu 12.04 LTS 64-bit on a Macbook Pro 5.5. I'm dealing with a couple of issues with the backlight and other little pesky things which with my understanding could be caused by the silly Mac, or just a brand new LTS, or both. Is it known for macs running ubuntu to run better with the 64-bit or 32-bit? I know that the bit size deals with info transfer, but I'm just curious if the versions react differently with the macs cpu and hardware (for example if I switch to 32-bit would the backlight issue be resolved) and resulting in a better user experience. =) thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Installing old Loki games on 12.04 64-bit results in no audio

    - by FlabbergastedPickle
    All, Here's an interesting problem. I followed instructions provided online for installing Loki Games' Heroes of Might and Magic 3 (see http://www.swanson.ukfsn.org/loki/ and http://wtanaka.com/node/7641) and got it installed and patched to the latest version. However, every time I start it regardless whether the pulseaudio is running, I get the following error: LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib/Loki_Compat/ /usr/local/lib/Loki_Compat/ld-linux.so.2 /usr/local/games/Heroes3/heroes3.dynamic ALSA lib conf.c:3314:(snd_config_hooks_call) Cannot open shared library libasound_module_conf_pulse.so ALSA lib pcm.c:2217:(snd_pcm_open_noupdate) Unknown PCM default Couldn't open audio: My first soundcard is HDMI output and my second one is the actual soundcard (HP DM1 running 12.04 64-bit with latest updates). I did set up /etc/asound.conf as follows: asound.conf pcm.!default { type hw card 1 } ctl.!default { type hw card 1 } So, the default soundcard should work ok. Between Shadowgrounds that also stopped working and this it appears a there may be some unfinished business/regressions in 32-bit support on 64-bit systems in 12.04. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • VMWare Workstation 6.5.5 (64-bit) on Ubuntu 10.04 (64-bit) Odd Problem

    - by Android Eve
    I managed to successfully install VMWare Workstation 6.5.5 (64-bit) on Ubuntu 10.04 (64-bit). It works well and somehow feels faster and snappier than the same exact version on Ubuntu 8.04. However, there is one slight issue, somewhat hurting productivity: When the guest VM is Microsoft Windows (2K, XP), the mouse cursor turn from an arrow to a hand when it hovers over the Task Bar. When the mouse moves, this hand cursor blinks and the system doesn't respond to mouse clicks. When I move the mouse cursor back to the desktop area, it functions normally. That is, the problem exists only in the Task Bar area. Obviously, this makes it very difficult (read: impossible) for me to use the Start Menu, SysTray and the rest of the Task Bar. My workaround for now is to launch programs via their Desktop shortcuts or via the keyboard. Note: The same exact VMWare Workstation 6.5.5 (64-bit) on Ubuntu 8.04 (64-bit) doesn't exhibit this problem. Anyone seen this problem before? Do you know of a solution (or better workaround) to this problem?

    Read the article

  • How to know which operating system is suitable for my PC between 32/64-bit?

    - by avirk
    I'm using 32-bit operating system since I've my laptop. I've never used the 64-bit operating system so I'm much curious about this that if I upgrade to 64-bit still my pc will give me the same performance. However I've checked about my hardware from this question. I don't know about those result that what they are saying? So I'm here for little help to know that is there any performance issue after upgrading or not?

    Read the article

  • How to change Ubuntu from 64 to 32 bit [closed]

    - by Shmaleb
    Possible Duplicate: Can I switch from ubuntu amd64 to ubuntu 32bit My brother installed 64 bit Ubuntu on my moms old PC (dualboot with winXP) and it runs very crappily. It is on Ubuntu 11.10 and I was wondering if there is any easy way of updating to 32 bit 12.04. I know on fedora when you insert instillation media on a computer that already has fedora it asks you if you want to install it over that fedora, is there anything like this for Ubuntu. THANKS!

    Read the article

  • Chroot into a 32 bit version of ubuntu from a 64 bit host

    - by Leif Andersen
    I have a piece of software that only runs on 32 bit linux (Xilinx webPack 10.1, apperently it 'has' to be the old version because that's the latest one compatible with their boards), anyway, this version is only compatible with 32 bit linux. So, I head off to this page to see what I can do: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/32bit_and_64bit Of the 4 options (listed at the bottom): I already installed ia32-libs, and it's still not working I could do that one if needed (which I ended up doing). No, I don't want to be working from a vm all of next semester, that would be painful and I'd rather just reinstall my whole computer to a 32 bit os (which I don't want to do). It didn't sound like it was the best option based on what I've seen. So I went off to do #2, and set up a chroot for 32 bit ubuntu. It linked to this tutorial: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/DebootstrapChroot As I'm running ubuntu 10.10 I made the lucid and newer version changes. Which is to say I wrote: [hardy-i386] description=Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy for i386 directory=/srv/chroot/hardy-i386 personality=linux32 root-users=leif type=directory users=leif to /etc/schroot/chroot.d/hardy-i386 (Note though that I did save it once before I had the file properly formatted, I saved the correct version moments later though). I then ran: $ sudo mkdir -p /srv/chroot/hardy_i386 $ sudo debootstrap --variant=buildd --arch i386 hardy /srv/chroot/hardy_i386 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ Then I ran: $ schroot -l And it showed the proper chroot, but then when I ran: $ schroot -c hardy-i386 -u root I got the following error: E: 10mount: error: Directory '/srv/chroot/hardy-i386' does not exist E: 10mount: warning: Mount location /var/lib/schroot/mount/hardy-i386-80359697-2164-4b10-a05a-89b0f497c4f1 no longer exists; skipping unmount E: hardy-i386-80359697-2164-4b10-a05a-89b0f497c4f1: Chroot setup failed: stage=setup-start Can anyone help me figure out what the problem is? Oh, by the way: /srv/chroot/hardy-i386 most certainly exists. I've also tried it replacing all references with hardy to lucid, to no avail. Oh, one more thing, I did set up the chrome os environment a month back or so: http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-guide and it had me use something with chmod. So, can anyone figure out what the problem is? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How can I install a 32bit python on 64 bit Ubuntu

    - by moose
    I am using Ubuntu 10.10 (Linux pc07 2.6.35-27-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP Tue Feb 22 20:25:46 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux) and the default python package (Python 2.6.6). I would like to install python-psyco to improve the performance of one of my scripts, but only python-psyco-doc is available for 64 bit. I tried a virtual machine, but the the performance boost is much less on the virtual machine than on a "real" installed 32-bit Ubuntu. So my question is: How can I install a 32Bit Python with psyco on my 64Bit Ubuntu machine? edit: I've found this article and made this: Download "Python 2.7.1 bzipped source tarball" from http://python.org/download/ Go in the directory where you decompressed "Python 2.7.1" $ OPT=-m32 LDFLAGS=-m32 ./configure --prefix=/opt/pym32 $ make But I got this error: gcc -pthread -m32 -Xlinker -export-dynamic -o python \ Modules/python.o \ libpython2.7.a -lpthread -ldl -lutil -lm libpython2.7.a(posixmodule.o): In function `posix_tmpnam': /home/moose/Downloads/Python-2.7.1/./Modules/posixmodule.c:7346: warning: the use of `tmpnam_r' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp' libpython2.7.a(posixmodule.o): In function `posix_tempnam': /home/moose/Downloads/Python-2.7.1/./Modules/posixmodule.c:7301: warning: the use of `tempnam' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp' Segmentation fault make: *** [sharedmods] Fehler 139 edit2: Now I've found http://indefinitestudies.org/2010/02/08/how-to-build-32-bit-python-on-ubuntu-9-10-x86_64/ and it seems like this worked: $ cd Python-2.7.1 $ CC="gcc -m32" LDFLAGS="-L/lib32 -L/usr/lib32 \ -Lpwd/lib32 -Wl,-rpath,/lib32 -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib32" \ ./configure --prefix=/opt/pym32 $ make $ sudo make install But installing psyco didn't work: Download the lastest snapshot: http://psyco.sourceforge.net/download.html Extract it and go into the folder $ python setup.py install This error appeared: PROCESSOR = 'ivm' running install running build running build_py running build_ext building 'psyco._psyco' extension gcc -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O2 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -fPIC -DALL_STATIC=1 -Ic/ivm -I/usr/include/python2.6 -c c/psyco.c -o build/temp.linux-x86_64-2.6/c/psyco.o In file included from c/psyco.c:1: c/psyco.h:9: fatal error: Python.h: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden compilation terminated. error: command 'gcc' failed with exit status 1

    Read the article

  • Steam on 64-bit 14.04: need some help, missing a few 32-bit libs

    - by YellowShark
    Steam says I'm missing the following libs, I'm hoping someone can help me get things in better shape: [email protected]:~$ STEAM_RUNTIME=0 steam Running Steam on ubuntu 14.04 64-bit STEAM_RUNTIME is disabled by the user Error: You are missing the following 32-bit libraries, and Steam may not run: libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 libpango-1.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 Installing breakpad exception handler for appid(steam)/version(1401381906_client) Installing breakpad exception handler for appid(steam)/version(1401381906_client) [2014-06-11 20:45:39] Startup - updater built May 29 2014 09:19:23 [2014-06-11 20:45:39] Verifying installation... [2014-06-11 20:45:39] Verification complete [2014-06-11 20:45:42] Shutdown I tried installing the following i386 packages: libpango-1.0-0:i386, libpangoft2-1.0-0:i386, and libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0:i386, and symlinking the .so files (from usr/lib/i386whatever../) into the ~/.local/share/Steam/ubuntu12_32/ folder, but wasn't able to find the right match for the gtk-x11 lib, and ultimately would up with a different, but still non-working situation. So I've back-tracked to this point, and have removed those i386 packages for now. It's worth noting thatSteam runs if I don't use STEAM_RUNTIME=0. Also, Steam seemed to "recognize" the i386 version of the libpango & libpangoft2 libs after I symlinked them into place, during the course of my troubleshooting; when I would rerun STEAM_RUNTIME=0 steam, it wouldn't list those two items as missing anymore. Instead though, I had a bunch of gtk-related issues, something about overlay-scrollbar not available, as well as warnings that it can't find the murrine engine... a whole bunch of stuff that sounded like I'd gone too far down the wrong path. Anyhow, any help sorting this out would be appreciated, and thanks!

    Read the article

  • help: cannot make ubuntu 64-bit v12.04 install work

    - by honestann
    I decided it was time to update my ubuntu (single boot) computer from 64-bit v10.04 to 64-bit v12.04. Unfortunately, for some reason (or reasons) I just can't make it work. Note that I am attempting a fresh install of 64-bit v12.04 onto a new 3TB hard disk, not an upgrade of the 1TB hard disk that has contained my 64-bit v10.04 installation. To perform the attempted install of v12.04 I unplug the SATA cable from the 1TB drive and plug it into the 3TB drive (to avoid risking damage to my working v10.04 installation). I downloaded the ubuntu 64-bit v12.04 install DVD ISO file (~1.6 GB) from the ubuntu releases webpage and burned it onto a DVD. I have downloaded the DVD ISO file 3 times and burned 3 of these installation DVDs (twice with v10.04 and once with my winxp64 system), but none of them work. I run the "check disk" on the DVDs at the beginning of the installation process to assure the DVD is valid. I also tried to install on two older 250GB seagate drives in the same computer. During every attempt I plug the same SATA cable (sda) into only one disk drive (the 3TB or one of the 250GB drives) and leave the other disk drives unconnected (for simplicity). Installation takes about 30 minutes on the 250GB drives, and about 60 minutes on the 3TB drive - not sure why. When I install on the 250GB drives, the install process finishes, the computer reboots (after the install DVD is removed), but I get a grub error 15. It is my understanding that 64-bit ubuntu (and 64-bit linux in general) has no problem with 3TB disk drives. In the BIOS I have tried having EFI set to "enabled" and "auto" with no apparent difference (no success). I have tried partitioning the drive in a few ways to see if that makes a difference, but so far it has not mattered. Typically I manually create partitions something like this: 8GB swap 8GB /boot ext4 3TB / ext4 But I've also tried the following, just in case it matters: 100MB boot efi 8GB swap 8GB /boot ext4 3TB / ext4 Note: In the partition dialog I specify bootup on the same drive I am partitioning and installing ubuntu v12.04 onto. It is a VERY DANGEROUS FACT that the default for this always comes up with the wrong drive (some other drive, generally the external drive). Unless I'm stupid or misunderstanding something, this is very wrong and very dangerous default behavior. Note: If I connect the SATA cable to the 1TB drive that has been my ubuntu 64-bit v10.04 system drive for the past 2 years, it boots up and runs fine. I guess there must be a log file somewhere, and maybe it gives some hints as to what the problem is. I should be able to boot off the 1TB drive with the 3TB drive connected as a secondary (non-boot) drive and get the log file, assuming there is one and someone tells me the name (and where to find it if the name is very generic). After installation on the 3TB drive completes and the system reboots, the following prints out on a black screen: Loading Operating System ... Boot from CD/DVD : Boot from CD/DVD : error: unknown filesystem grub rescue Note: I have two DVD burners in the system, hence the duplicate line above. The same install and reboot on the 250GB drives generates "grub error 15". Sigh. Any ideas? ========== motherboard == gigabyte 990FXA-UD7 CPU == AMD FX-8150 8-core bulldozer @ 3.6 GHz RAM == 8GB of DDR3 in 2 sticks (matched pair) HDD == seagate 3TB SATA3 @ 7200 rpm (new install 64-bit v12.04) HDD == seagate 1TB SATA3 @ 7200 rpm (current install 64-bit v10.04) GPU == nvidia GTX-285 ??? == no overclocking or other funky business USB == external seagate 2TB HDD for making backups DVD == one bluray burner (SATA) DVD == one DVD burner (SATA) The current ubuntu 64-bit v10.04 system boots and runs fine on a seagate 1TB.

    Read the article

  • Can't install wine (or ia32-libs) in Ubuntu 12.10 64 bit

    - by carestad
    As already pointed out here, people seems to have issues with installing wine in the latest version of Ubuntu. I'm suspecting this only happens with 64 bit users. For example, when trying to install wine, wine1.4, wine1.4:i386, wine1.5, wine1.5:i386, ia32-libs or ia32-libs:i386 with apt-get, I get a lot of dependency errors. Doing a sudo apt-get -f install doesn't seem to do the trick, neither does using aptitude. The errors I get is normally that the packages depend on some :i386 package, but installing those manually doesn't work either because they also have dependency issues (isn't APT supposed to do this automatically?!). I also downloaded CrossOver today and tried installing the .deb manually, but the dependency issues show up there as well. When running sudo apt-get -f install after trying to install the CrossOver .deb, apt-get wants to purge the following packages: ia32-crossover intel-gpu-tools libdrm-nouveau2 libgl1-mesa-dri libva-x11-1 ubuntu-desktop vlc xorg xserver-xorg-video-ati xserver-xorg-video-intel xserver-xorg-video-modesetting xserver-xorg-video-openchrome xserver-xorg-video-radeon xserver-xorg-video-vmware What I've tried so far (and didn't work): Installing synaptic, reloading my repositories, searching for ia32 and installing ia32-libs. Using Ubuntu Software Center to install Wine and ia32-libs. Using apt-get and aptitude to install all the differend varieties of the wine packages, both with and without the :i386 and -amd64 suffixes in package names. Disabling the universe and multiverse repos, run a sudo apt-get update and then re-enable them again. Boot a newly downloaded Ubuntu 12.10 x64 live USB and try to install all the different packages there. What I haven't tried (yet): Boot a newly downloaded Ubuntu 12.10 x32 image and try to install wine there (I'm just guessing that will work). Reinstall Ubuntu. Throw my computer out a window. wine [email protected]:~$ LANGUAGE=en_US sudo apt-get install wine Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: wine : Depends: wine1.5 but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. wine-1.4 [email protected]:~$ LANGUAGE=en_US sudo apt-get install wine1.4 (...) The following packages have unmet dependencies: wine1.4 : Depends: wine1.4-i386 (= 1.4.1-0ubuntu1) E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. wine-1.4:i386 [email protected]:~$ LANGUAGE=en_US sudo apt-get install wine1.4:i386 (...) The following packages have unmet dependencies: libaudio2:i386 : Depends: libxt6:i386 but it is not going to be installed libqtgui4:i386 : Depends: libsm6:i386 but it is not going to be installed libunity-webapps0 : Depends: unity-webapps-service but it is not going to be installed openssh-client : Depends: adduser (>= 3.10) but it is not going to be installed Depends: passwd ssh : Depends: openssh-server wine1.4:i386 : Depends: wine1.4-i386:i386 (= 1.4.1-0ubuntu1) Depends: binfmt-support:i386 (>= 1.1.2) Depends: procps:i386 Recommends: cups-bsd:i386 Recommends: gnome-exe-thumbnailer:i386 but it is not installable or kde-runtime:i386 but it is not going to be installed Recommends: ttf-droid:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: ttf-liberation:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: ttf-mscorefonts-installer:i386 Recommends: ttf-umefont:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: ttf-unfonts-core:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: ttf-wqy-microhei:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: winbind:i386 Recommends: winetricks:i386 but it is not going to be installed Recommends: xdg-utils:i386 but it is not installable E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by held packages. wine-1.5 [email protected]:~$ sudo apt-get install wine1.5 (...) The following packages have unmet dependencies: wine1.5 : Depends: wine1.5-i386 (= 1.5.16-0ubuntu1) E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. wine-1.5:i386 [email protected]:~$ sudo apt-get install wine1.5:i386 (...) The following packages have unmet dependencies: libaudio2:i386 : Depends: libxt6:i386 but it is not going to be installed libqtgui4:i386 : Depends: libsm6:i386 but it is not going to be installed libunity-webapps0 : Depends: unity-webapps-service but it is not going to be installed openssh-client : Depends: adduser (>= 3.10) but it is not going to be installed Depends: passwd ssh : Depends: openssh-server wine1.5:i386 : Depends: wine1.5-i386:i386 (= 1.5.16-0ubuntu1) but it is not going to be installed Depends: binfmt-support:i386 (>= 1.1.2) Depends: procps:i386 Recommends: cups-bsd:i386 Recommends: gnome-exe-thumbnailer:i386 but it is not installable or kde-runtime:i386 but it is not going to be installed Recommends: ttf-droid:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: ttf-liberation:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: ttf-mscorefonts-installer:i386 Recommends: ttf-umefont:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: ttf-unfonts-core:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: ttf-wqy-microhei:i386 but it is not installable Recommends: winbind:i386 Recommends: winetricks:i386 but it is not going to be installed Recommends: xdg-utils:i386 but it is not installable E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by held packages. ia32-libs [email protected]:~$ sudo apt-get install ia32-libs (...) The following packages have unmet dependencies: ia32-libs : Depends: ia32-libs-multiarch E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. ia32-libs:i386 [email protected]:~$ sudo apt-get install ia32-libs:i386 (...) Package ia32-libs:i386 is not available, but is referred to by another package. This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or is only available from another source However the following packages replace it: lib32z1 lib32ncurses5 lib32bz2-1.0 lib32asound2 E: Package 'ia32-libs:i386' has no installation candidate

    Read the article

  • 32-bit and 64-bit CPU/OS [closed]

    - by learnerforever
    Possible Duplicates: how to know if a computer is 32 bit or 64 bit 32-bit v/s 64-bit systems Hi, This 32-bit and 64-bit thing baffles me. It's not often that I run across it, but when I do, it baffles me. Like when I want to download software from http://www.google.com/ime/transliteration/ it asks me which version to download. I have win XP running on my thinkpad machine. How do I find out if my hardware is 32-bit or 64-bit. Also, how do I find if OS is 32-bit or 64-bit and thus how to know which version to download from this link. Also for any installed application say firefox, how do I know which bit version is installed. How popular are 64-bit hardware/OSs?. Are all the new CPUs and OSs supporting 64-bit and 32-bit for backwards compatible or 64-bit is still a luxury? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • What is the 64-bit Firefox Beta PPA?

    - by JamesTheAwesomeDude
    I recently discovered that my computer is 64-bit. I have backed up my Home folder, and reinstalled Ubuntu. The reinstall wasn't nearly as painful as I thought. There is one thing that I can't quite seem to figure out: how do I get the 64-bit Firefox Beta build? I always get the Beta builds, but I want to take advantage of the 64-bit architecture of my computer. this page says that Mozilla has come out with a 64-bit version of Firefox, but I can't seem to find it. I do understand the ramifications of using a 64-bit browser, but I've decided to jump right in and do it anyway. (Flash and Java are already 64-bit, and who cares about Silverlight, since it's not for Linux anyway?) There's only one issue, and it's a big one: I can't find the 64-bit Beta PPA!!! (I really hate using .tar.gz files, but I'd be willing to do that as long as I could still access Firefox via the Launcher. Oh, speaking of which, I don't understand .tar.gz files. Once, I managed to run one (the Dropbox Beta build,) but I have no idea whatsoever on how to install them: as in, click on the icon and go.)

    Read the article

  • Oracle 64-bit assembly throws BadImageFormatException when running unit tests

    - by pjohnson
    We recently upgraded to the 64-bit Oracle client. Since then, Visual Studio 2010 unit tests that hit the database (I know, unit tests shouldn't hit the database--they're not perfect) all fail with this error message:Test method MyProject.Test.SomeTest threw exception: System.Reflection.TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. ---> System.BadImageFormatException: Could not load file or assembly 'Oracle.DataAccess, Version=4.112.3.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=89b483f429c47342' or one of its dependencies. An attempt was made to load a program with an incorrect format.I resolved this by changing the test settings to run tests in 64-bit. From the Test menu, go to Edit Test Settings, and pick your settings file. Go to Hosts, and change the "Run tests in 32 bit or 64 bit process" dropdown to "Run tests in 64 bit process on 64 bit machine". Now your tests should run.This fix makes me a little nervous. Visual Studio 2010 and earlier seem to change that file for no apparent reason, add more settings files, etc. If you're not paying attention, you could have TestSettings1.testsettings through TestSettings99.testsettings sitting there and never notice the difference. So it's worth making a note of how to change it in case you have to redo it, and being vigilant about files VS tries to add.I'm not entirely clear on why this was even a problem. Isn't that the point of an MSIL assembly, that it's not specific to the hardware it runs on? An IL disassembler can open the Oracle.DataAccess.dll in question, and in its Runtime property, I see the value "v4.0.30319 / x64". So I guess the assembly was specifically build to target 64-bit platforms only, possibly due to a 64-bit-specific difference in the external Oracle client upon which it depends. Most other assemblies, especially in the .NET Framework, list "msil", and a couple list "x86". So I guess this is another entry in the long list of ways Oracle refuses to play nice with Windows and .NET.If this doesn't solve your problem, you can read others' research into this error, and where to change the same test setting in Visual Studio 2012.

    Read the article

  • 32-bit program using Office IFilters when 64-bit Office is installed

    - by user56312
    64-bit Office installs 64-bit IFilters for its document types, but does not install 32-bit IFilters. Therefore, 32-bit programs that rely on IFilters cannot work with 64-bit Office. And although there is an option to download 32-bit IFilters from Microsoft, the installer will not run on a 64-bit machine, complaining about architecture mismatch. Is there any way to make 32-bit programs extract text from Office documents using IFilters when 64-bit Office is installed? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Strange issue with 64 bit OS

    - by Sherwin Flight
    So I own two versions of Windows 7, one is 32 bit, the other is 64. The 64 bit version came with my new desktop, and the 32 bit version came with my Laptop. I was doing a clean install of my laptop, and the install went smooth, Windows is up and running! However, after installing it I realized that I accidentally used the 64 bit installation disk instead of the 32 bit version. I confirmed this in the System Information screen, it says: System type: 64-bit Operating System As far as I knew this laptop was only a 32 bit machine. My understanding is that a 64 bit OS would NOT run on 32 bit architecture. Am I correct with this assumption? If this was a 32 bit laptop is there any way a 64 bit OS would even run at all on it?

    Read the article

  • VM VirtualBox doesn't allow to enable 64-bit guest on Ubuntu 12.04 and Lenovo G500S

    - by Filip
    I've installed VM VirtualBox v. 4.3.8 on my Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (Lenovo G500S with Intel 1005M processor) and I can't configure any 64-bit guest (nor Windows, neither other OS). Inslalation of Win 8.1 64-bit under 32-bit profile obviously fails... My processor supports VT-x technology, but in my BIOS there is no enable/disable option for VT-x. Is there any way to force VirtualBox to support 64-bit guest ?

    Read the article

  • Perfomance of 8 bit operations on 64 bit architechture

    - by wobbily_col
    I am usually a Python / Database programmer, and I am considering using C for a problem. I have a set of sequences, 8 characters long with 4 possible characters. My problem involves combining sets of these sequences and filtering which sets match a criteria. The combinations of 5 run into billions of rows and takes around an hour to run. So I can represent each sequence as 2 bytes. If I am working on a 64 bit architechture will I gain any advantage by keeping these data structures as 2 bytes when I generate the combinations, or will I be as well storing them as 8 bytes / double ? (64 bit = 8 x 8) If I am on a 64 bit architecture, all registers will be 64 bit, so in terms of operations that shouldn´t be any faster (please correct me if I am wrong). Will I gain anything from the smaller storage requirements - can I fit more combinations in memory, or will they all take up 64 bits anyway? And finally, am I likley to gain anything coding in C. I have a first version, which stores the sequence as a small int in a MySQL database. It then self joins the tabe to itself a number of times in order to generate all the possible combinations. The performance is acceptable, depending on how many combinations are generated. I assume the database must involve some overhead.

    Read the article

  • " this kernel required an X86-64 CPU, but only detected a i686 CPU"

    - by jy19
    I recently decided to use Virtualbox to run Ubuntu, but I get the message this kernel required an X86-64 CPU, but only detected a i686 CPU I've already enabled virtualization in BIOS, but that doesn't seem to work. Many other solutions suggest that I should download the 32-bit version, and not the 64-bit. I'm not sure about that though, since my computer clearly says "64-bit operating system" under systems. But I might just be mistaken.

    Read the article

  • Make Your 64 bit Computer Look like a Commodore 64

    - by Matthew Guay
    The Commodore 64 was one of the bestselling home computers ever, and many geeks got their first computing experience on one of these early personal computers. Here’s an easy way to revisit the early years of personal computing with a theme for Windows 7. With only 64Kb of ram and an 8 bit processor, the Commodore 64 is light-years behind today’s computers.  But with a Windows 7 themepack, you can turn back the years and give your computer a quick overhaul to look more like its ancient predecessor. Age Windows 7 with a click Download the Commodore 64 theme from PC World (link below), and unzip the files. Now, double-click on the Themepack file to apply the theme. This will open your Personalization panel and will automatically change your system fonts, window style, background, and more. Your desktop will go from your Windows 7 look… to a modified Windows 7 look that is reminiscent of the Commodore 64. Open an application to see all the changes … notice the old-style font in the Window boarder and menus. This theme also changes your Computer, Recycle Bin, and User folder icons to Commodore 64-inspired icons. And, if you want to go back to the standard Windows 7 look and feel, it’s only a click away in the Personalization dialog.  Right-click on your desktop, select Personalize, and then choose the theme you want.   Conclusion Although this doesn’t give you the real look and feel of the Commodore 64, it is still a fun way to experience a bit of computer nostalgia.  There are tons of excellent themes available for Windows 7, so check back for more exciting ways to customize your desktop! Link Download the Commodore 64 theme for Windows 7 Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Make MSE Create a Restore Point Before Cleaning MalwareMake Ubuntu Automatically Save Changes to Your SessionMake Windows Vista Shut Down Services QuickerChange Your Computer Name in Windows 7 or VistaMake Windows 7 or Vista Log On Automatically TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips DVDFab 6 Revo Uninstaller Pro Registry Mechanic 9 for Windows PC Tools Internet Security Suite 2010 Dark Side of the Moon (8-bit) Norwegian Life If Web Browsers Were Modes of Transportation Google Translate (for animals) Out of 100 Tweeters Roadkill’s Scan Port scans for open ports

    Read the article

  • VMware Workstation reboot 32-bit host when starting 32/64-bit guest using VT-x

    - by Powerman
    I'm trying to start 64-bit guest (MacOSX and Windows7) on 32-bit host (Hardened Gentoo Linux, kernel 2.6.28-hardened-r9) using VMware Workstation (6.5.3.185404 and 7.0.1.227600). If VT-X disabled in BIOS, VMware refuse to start 64-bit guest (as expected). If VT-X enabled in BIOS, VMware start guest without complaining, but then, in about a second (I suppose as soon as guest try to switch on 64-bit) my host reboots (actually, it's more like reset - normal reboot procedure skipped and BIOS POST start immediately). My hardware is Core 2 Duo 6600 on ASUS P5B-Deluxe with latest stable BIOS 1101. I've power-cycled system, then enabled Vanderpool in BIOS. My CPU doesn't support Trusted Execution Technology, and there no way to disable it in BIOS. I've rebooted several times after that, sometimes with power-cycled, and ensure Vandertool is enabled in BIOS. I've also run VMware-guest64check-5.5.0-18463 tool, and it report "This host is capable of running a 64-bit guest operating system under this VMware product.". About a year ago I tried to disable hardened in kernel to ensure this isn't because of PaX/GrSecurity, but that doesn't help. I have not checked 32-bit guests with VT-X enabled yet, but without VT-X they works ok. ASUS provide "beta" BIOS updates, but according to their descriptions these updates doesn't fix this issue, so I'm not sure is it good idea to try it. My best guess now it's motherboard/BIOS bug. Any ideas? Update 1: I've tried to boot vt.iso provided at http://communities.vmware.com/docs/DOC-8978 and here is it report: CPU 0: VT is enabled on this core CPU 1: VT is enabled on this core Update 2: I've just tried to boot 32-bit guests (Windows7, Ubuntu9.04 and Gentoo) using all possible virtualization modes. In Automatic, Automatic with Replay, Binary translation everything works, in Intel VT-x/EPT or AMD-V/RVI I got message "This host does not support EPT. Using software virtualization with a software MMU." and everything works. BUT in Intel VT-x or AMD-V mode all 32-bit guests reset host just like 64-bit guests! So, this issue is not specific to 64-bit guests. One more thing. Using Intel VT-x or AMD-V mode for both 32/64-bit guests my host reset right after starting VM, i.e. before VM BIOS POST and before guest even start booting. But using Intel VT-x/EPT or AMD-V/RVI VM BIOS runs ok, then 64-bit guests start booting (Windows7 completed "Loading files" progressbar), and only after that host reset.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >