Search Results

Search found 33496 results on 1340 pages for '32 vs 64 bit'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/1340 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Install Windows 8 64-bit over the top of Windows 8 32-bit

    - by Andrew Gee
    I currently have Windows 8 32-bit installed from MSDN (I didn't realise at the time that my processor supports 64-bit). I understand that you can't upgrade within Windows 32-bit to 64-bit directly from the ISO. I have burned the ISO to a DVD, and have attempted booting from this drive. The problem I am encountering: The operating system couldn't be loaded because a required file is missing or contains errors. File: CI.dll Error code: 0xc0000221 You'll need to use the recovery tools on your installation media. If you don't have any installation media (like a disc or USB device), contact your system administrator or PC manufacturer. Additional info: Computer: HP Pavillion m9280.uk-a Processor: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core RAM: 3 1GB sticks Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Upgrading from 32 to 64 Bit Windows 7, without losing program installations/games

    - by Fogest
    I recently built a new computer and put the wrong installation of Windows on (32 bit), meaning I cannot use all of my RAM. I would like to upgrade to the 64 bit version, though I already have downloaded many programs and games which would total to around 30 GB give or take. I don't have the kind of data usage with my ISP to re-download this much data again, until next month (total GB will be higher as time goes on). I know there is Windows Easy Transfer, but it is not so much my data itself I'm worried about, it is more having to re-download and install a bunch of games and applications. Is it possible to perform an upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit without this loss?

    Read the article

  • Issue running 32-bit executable on 64-bit Windows

    - by David Murdoch
    I'm using wkhtmltopdf to convert HTML web pages to PDFs. This works perfectly on my 32-bit dev server [unfortunately, I can't ship my machine :-p ]. However, when I deploy to the web application's 64-bit server the following errors are displayed: (running from cmd.exe) C:\>wkhtmltopdf http://www.google.com google.pdf Loading pages (1/5) QFontEngine::loadEngine: GetTextMetrics failed () ] 10% QFontEngineWin: GetTextMetrics failed () QFontEngineWin: GetTextMetrics failed () QFontEngine::loadEngine: GetTextMetrics failed () QFontEngineWin: GetTextMetrics failed () QFontEngineWin: GetTextMetrics failed () QFontEngineWin: GetTextMetrics failed () QFontEngine::loadEngine: GetTextMetrics failed () ] 36% QFontEngineWin: GetTextMetrics failed () QFontEngineWin: GetTextMetrics failed () // ...etc.... and the PDF is created and saved... just WITHOUT text. All form-fields, images, borders, tables, divs, spans, ps, etc are rendered accurately...just void of any text at all. Server information: Windows edition: Windows Server Standard Service Pack 2 Processor: Intel Xeon E5410 @ 2.33GHz 2.33 GHz Memory: 8.00 GB System type: 64-bit Operating System Can anyone give me a clue as to what is happening and how I can fix this? Also, I wasn't sure what to tag/title this question with...so if you can think of better tags/title comment them or edit the question. :-)

    Read the article

  • I'm confuse about these 2 statements about performance of 32 bit application on 64 bit Windows 7....

    - by metal gear solid
    Running some 32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS could actually be slower. The additional overheads in running 32 bit software in 64 bit mode could cause a slight degradation in performance. It will take some time for 64 bit software to become the norm. Source: http://www.w7forums.com/windows-7-64-bit-vs-32-bit-t484.html That depends. If you're working with large files or running applications that consume a great deal of memory, then 64-bit Windows will typically give you a slight performance advantage over 32-bit Windows running on identical hardware. This is true even when using 32-bit applications. Source: http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/32-bit-windows-7-or-64-bit-windows-7-145?page=0,3 Which is true? If i go for 64 bit Windows 7 then will i feel more performance (Compare to 32 bit windows 7) of 3 years back purchased Adobe photoshop (I think it would be a 32 bit application) and some of other 32 bit applications ?

    Read the article

  • Merging `Program Files` and `Program Files (x86)` folders in Windows 7 64-bit

    - by Mehper C. Palavuzlar
    Windows 7 64-bit version installs 32-bit programs to Program Files (x86) folder, and 64-bit programs to Program Files folder. Of course, Microsoft must have a reason for doing that, but as a user I don't find it handy to have 2 separate program folders. Is there any way to merge those folders into one (preferably, Program Files) without corrupting installed programs? And would it be a problem to install 32-bit applications into Program Files folder?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu Natty: 32-bit userland, 64-bit kernel?

    - by dsimcha
    I'm trying to manually install a 64-bit kernel for 32-bit Ubuntu. I have my reasons for doing so, but they're too complicated to explain here. Prior to Natty, this worked fine. Now, on Natty, I get the following error message when I try doing it the same way: dsimcha@dsimcha-laptop:~$ sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture linux-image-2.6.38-8-server_2.6.38-8.42_amd64.deb [sudo] password for dsimcha: dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6.38-8-server_2.6.38-8.42_amd64.deb (--install): cannot access archive: No such file or directory Errors were encountered while processing: linux-image-2.6.38-8-server_2.6.38-8.42_amd64.deb dsimcha@dsimcha-laptop:~$ cd Downloads/ dsimcha@dsimcha-laptop:~/Downloads$ sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture linux-image-2.6.38-8-server_2.6.38-8.42_amd64.deb dpkg: warning: overriding problem because --force enabled: package architecture (amd64) does not match system (i386) (Reading database ... 159153 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64 2.6.38-8.42 (using linux-image-2.6.38-8-server_2.6.38-8.42_amd64.deb) ... Done. Unpacking replacement linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64 ... Examining /etc/kernel/postrm.d . run-parts: executing /etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs-tools 2.6.38-8-server /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.38-8-server run-parts: executing /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-update-grub 2.6.38-8-server /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.38-8-server dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64: linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64 depends on initramfs-tools (>= 0.36ubuntu6). linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64 depends on coreutils | fileutils (>= 4.0); however: Package coreutils:amd64 is not installed. linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64 depends on module-init-tools (>= 3.3-pre11-4ubuntu3); however: linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64 depends on wireless-crda; however: dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64 (--install): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: linux-image-2.6.38-8-server:amd64 When I try the dependencies manually, I get, for example: dsimcha@dsimcha-laptop:~/Downloads$ sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture coreutils_8.5-1ubuntu6_amd64.deb dpkg: warning: overriding problem because --force enabled: package architecture (amd64) does not match system (i386) dpkg: error processing coreutils_8.5-1ubuntu6_amd64.deb (--install): coreutils:amd64 8.5-1ubuntu6 (Multi-Arch: no) is not co-installable with coreutils:i386 8.5-1ubuntu6 (Multi-Arch: no) which is currently installed Errors were encountered while processing: coreutils_8.5-1ubuntu6_amd64.deb Has anyone had any success installing 64-bit kernels on 32-bit Natty? If so, how can this be done?

    Read the article

  • Run an application only compatible with 32-bit on 64-bit machine

    - by Glenn
    Title's pretty explanatory. I have an application(Second Life) that isn't compatible with 64-bit windows 7. It says that it is compatible with Windows XP, Vista, and 7 but only the 32-bit version of 7. I need to know if it's possible for me to download something to make the application compatible with my computer. I've run troubleshooters and ran it as windows compatible XP service pack 2 and tried again with service pack 3.

    Read the article

  • Hardware imposed 32-bit limit

    - by knittl
    i'm thinking about converting my OS (ubuntu) to the 64 bit version to use the last bit of memory (4 gb)—ok, it's rather reinstalling … will this work as expected or are there possible limits given by the mainboard/memory controller/some other component, so i cannot fully utilize my full ram? if so, are there benefits from upgrading anyway?

    Read the article

  • Hardware imposed 32-bit limit

    - by knittl
    i'm thinking about converting my OS (ubuntu) to the 64 bit version to use the last bit of memory (4 gb)—ok, it's rather reinstalling … will this work as expected or are there possible limits given by the mainboard/memory controller/some other component, so i cannot fully utilize my full ram? if so, are there benefits from upgrading anyway?

    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

  • MS Excel 2010 - Using DSN + 32 bit drivers

    - by Kristiaan
    I need some advice as im running into a problem and so far i have been unable to find a solution. We have a set of reports developed in MS Excel that use DSN file to connect to data sources to retrieve data, these work fine on 32 / 64bit systems, however we are moving to a terminal server environment using windows 2008 R2 64Bit. The reports fail to run using the DSN's within this environment if we only have the 32bit drivers installed and configured in the ODBC settings, the minute we install the 64Bit drivers the software works. Is there a way / Method of getting Excel or the DSN file to NOT use the 64Bit driver, but force it to use the 32bit driver. ANSWERED - But due to low user score i cannot "answer" my own question... Sadly there is no way to-do what i want to-do, without a lot of very nasty and not 100% perfect reg hacks. If you need to access 32bit ODBC data sources the application in question has to be 32Bit. here is a link to just one forum post i found relating to this type of problem, it appears the only way i would be able to accomplish this is to remove the 64bit version of office and install the 32bit version instead of it. http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/accessdev/thread/5108f337-f06a-4518-afe3-d3c1abd040ef/

    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

  • How-to: determine 64-bitness of Windows? [closed]

    - by warren
    Possible Duplicate: Tell the version of Windows XP (64-bits or 32-bits) Is it possible to determine whether a given installation of Windows is 32- or 64-bit? From right-clicking on My Computer, and selecting Properties, it appears that such information is not readily available. Typing ver at the command prompt also doesn't seem to return anything about the nature of the platform in which it is installed. Under Linux, I'd use uname -a to find out what kernel was running. Is there an analog on Windows?

    Read the article

  • Installing and using 32-bit software in 64-bit Linux

    - by Isxek
    Is there a way to install and run i386 software packages inside an AMD64 version of Xubuntu (v9.10)? Just to get an idea, how much effort would it require to port it to something usable within the said OS. I imagine it would be a lot. Thanks! If you need more info (specs, etc.) let me know.

    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 large is the performance loss for a 64-bit VirtualBox guest running on a 32-bit host?

    - by IllvilJa
    I have a 64-bit Virtualbox guest running Gentoo Linux (amd64) and it is currently hosted on a 32-bit Gentoo laptop. I've noticed that the performance of the VM is very slow compared to the performance of the 32-bit host itself. Also when I compare with another 32-bit Linux VM running on the same host, performance is significantly less on the 64-bit VM. I know that running a 64-bit VM on a 32-bit host does incur some performance penalties for the VM, but does anyone have any deeper knowledge of how large a penalty one might expect in this scenario, roughly speaking? Is a 10% slowdown something to expect, or should it be a slowdown in the 90% range (running at 1/10 the normal speed)? Or to phrase it in another way: would it be reasonable to expect that the performance improvement for the 64-bit VM increases so much that it is worth reinstalling the host machine to run 64-bit Gentoo instead? I'm currently seriously considering that upgrade, but am curious about other peoples experience of the current scenario. I am aware that the host OS will require more RAM when running in 64-bit, but that's OK for me. Also, I do know that one usually don't run a 64-bit VM on a 32-bit server (I'm surprised I even got the VM started in the first place) but things turned out that way when I tried to future proof the VM I was setting up and decided to make it 64-bit anyway.

    Read the article

  • Can I install two Ubuntu versions on the same machine?

    - by Abh
    Hello, I have Ubuntu 10.10 32 bit already installed on my machine..I am using MongoDB and it does not work properly with 32 bit machine. So I want to install 64 bit Ubuntu 10.10 on my system on another partition (so that I can have both 32 bit and 64 bit versions). Is it okay to install both 32 bit and 64 bit? I mean will it give any problems? On which partition should I install the 64 bit version? My partitions are as follows: Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 37G 11G 25G 30% / none 1.4G 260K 1.4G 1% /dev none 1.4G 776K 1.4G 1% /dev/shm none 1.4G 244K 1.4G 1% /var/run none 1.4G 0 1.4G 0% /var/lock /dev/sda6 129G 73G 50G 60% /home /dev/sda7 127G 76G 45G 64% /vol Waiting for your replies.

    Read the article

  • Unable to execute binary file. Exec format error

    - by user2689020
    I recently heard about Breach, a Node.js based browser. I was following the instructions on http://codeforgeek.com/2014/08/download-install-breach-browser-ubuntu-14-04/ to install it but got the following error : breach-v0.3.22-alpha.6-linux-x64/__AUTO_UPDATE_BUNDLE__/exo_browser/exo_browser: cannot execute binary file: Exec format error After some googling, I found that it is because I am trying to install the 64 bit package on the 32 bit Ubuntu installation. I tried to find 32 bit package of the same but ended up with no luck. The browser is only available in 64 bit packet(as far as i know). So, My question is : Is it possible to somehow install it on the 32 bit OS or if any program available which can run 64 bit applications on the 32 bit OS. I have been googling around and found no help. Can anyone help me? I am using Ubuntu 14.04 (32 Bit). Thank You

    Read the article

  • 32-bit Ubuntu or 64-bit w/Intel Atom D510 w/4GB RAM?

    - by T.J. Crowder
    (I've seen this question and some related ones, and perhaps this is a duplicate although part of my question is specific to the Atom D510.) I'm going to be installing Ubuntu on a new silent desktop as my latest (and hopefully last) attempt to switch from Windows to Linux for at least most everyday tasks. The new machine is entirely passvely cooled, but as a consequence, not astonishingly powerful — an Atom D510 (dual-core, 1.6GHz, HT) on Intel's D510MO board. That's fine, I won't use it for gaming, (much) video editing, etc. It's a 64-bit processor and I'm maxing the board out at 4GB of RAM (hey, that 1.6 CPU needs all the help it can get), which naturally raises the question of whether to install Ubuntu 64-bit or 32-bit (and if the latter, either live with the missing RAM, or do the PAE kernel dance). Although I've used Linux on servers for years, I'm very nearly a Linux desktop newbie and am not currently in the mood to fight driver wars and such. So if I'm setting myself up for failure with 64-bit, I'll live with the missing ~0.8GB or fiddle with PAE. But if 64-bit is entirely "ready," great, I'm there. So: Do most mainstream apps (now) play nicely with 64-bit Linux? I can't help but notice the "AMD" in the ISO image filename ubuntu-10.04-desktop-amd64.iso and I know AMD lead the way on this stuff — does Ubuntu 64-bit play nicely with Intel processors? Just generally, would you recommend one or the other? (And if anyone has any experience with Ubuntu specifically on the D510 [32-bit or 64-bit] which might lead me one way or t'other, that would be useful.) Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why does Ubuntu Download recommend 32-bit install?

    - by Warren Pena
    The Ubuntu desktop download screen has a pair of radio buttons you use to select whether you wish to download the 32-bit or 64-bit version. The 64-bit version is labeled "Not recommended for daily desktop usage." If you have a 64-bit processor, why would you not want to use the 64-bit version of Ubuntu? Update for 10.10: They've removed the "Not recommended" label from the 64-bit version and added a "Recommended" label to the 32-bit version. Update for 11.04: Same as 10.10. Update for 12.04: Still says "Recommended" next to 32-bit version of desktop

    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

  • Which OS/distributions have 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace? [closed]

    - by osgx
    Which OS (or distributions) comes with 64-bit kernels (x86_64, SPARC64, PPC64, ..smth else?..) and 32-bit userland? I want all small userspace programs (like ls, cat, etc) to be 32-bit, because they really no needs to be 64-bit. But OS kernel must be 64bit for using =3 Gb of RAM. Also database programs (when using a lot of memory) can be 64bit. 64bit mode can hurt some programs, makes them bigger, eating (wasting) memory on pointers (especially in big abstract datatypes like list, tree, etc). 64 bit programss WASTES twice memory on EACH Pointer. I don't want it. And the Question is not "Are the 32-bit programs needed when 64-bit porcessor is available". Question is "What OS comes with 32 bit userspace and kernels in 32/64 bit mode". Examples of such OS includes: Solaris/SPARC64, MACOSX/X86_64 (10.5)/....

    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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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