Search Results

Search found 19878 results on 796 pages for 'bit pirate'.

Page 3/796 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • 32 bit programs can't access Internet in Windows 7 64 bit

    - by korona
    I recently got a new ASUS laptop with Windows 7 Home Premium pre-installed. It worked OK for a while but a couple of days ago, suddenly I couldn't access the Internet any more. After narrowing down the problem, I've reached the conclusion that what's happened is that 32 bit programs are suddenly not able to use the Internet, but 64 bit applications work just fine. Examples of programs that DON'T work any more: Google chrome Firefox Internet Explorer 8 World of Warcraft Examples of programs that DO work: Internet Explorer 8 (64 bit) ping (command line) nslookup (command line) ftp (command line) I'm pretty sure that those command line apps are 64 bit native. A re-install of Windows using the recovery partition on the laptop did fix the problem temporarily, but now it's back again. And I seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place getting someone to take the responsibility for this; the vendor says to talk to ASUS, ASUS says it's a software issue, and Microsoft doesn't give support on OEM licenses... Does anyone know how to solve this issue?

    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

  • 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

  • Install 64-bit Ubuntu or 32-bit?

    - by nitbuntu
    I'll be receiving a new notebook in a few days and was planning on running Ubuntu on it as it's compatible and the notebook has no OS pre-installed. The specifications are: Core 2 Duo, T6600, 4 GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics. I know a year or two ago, running a 64-bit version of Ubuntu was not advised due to much of the applications and plugins (e.g. Flash) only running on 32-bit. Is this still the case? Would I get better performance with 64-bit Ubuntu since I have 4 GB of RAM? Are there any downsides anymore?

    Read the article

  • Why do I need lib64 on my 32 bit machine?

    - by Tim
    I am trying to install Oracle on my 32-bit machine that runs Ubuntu 10.4. I am following install Oracle on Ubuntu tutorial. At the very first step there is a requirement to manually install library libstdc++5. Author does 2 steps: download libstdc++5_3.3.6-17ubuntu1_amd64.deb from here download ia32-libs_2.7ubuntu6.1_amd64.deb from here As you may have probably noticed these 2 files contain an "_amd64" postfix, which pointed me out that author is using 64-bit amd processor. Each of these files author copied to /usr/lib64 and /usr/lib32 folders correspondingly and simply make soft links libstdc++.so.5 in both folders. Since I am running 32-bit machine I have simply downloaded those 2 files without "_amd64" postfix. Unexpectedly for me I have also found 2 lib folders in my /usr folder: /usr/lib64 and /usr/lib. So here is my problem: I do not understand which files and where do I have to copy: 1) Do I have to make the same steps as the author has done, i.e. download files with "_amd64" postfixes and place them in my /usr/lib64 and /usr/lib folders? 2) Or do I have to use libraries without "_amd64" postfix? And one more question: why do I have /usr/lib64 at all?

    Read the article

  • Arrestation du co-fondateur de Pirate Bay au Cambodge, pour infraction au droit d'auteur

    Arrestation du co-fondateur de Pirate Bay au Cambodge Pour infraction au droit d'auteur Selon Torrent Freak, blog consacré aux dernières actualités BitTorrent et partage, Gottfrid Svartholm Wrag, le co-fondateur de Pirate Bay, a été arrêté et mis en détention ce jeudi à Phnom Penh, la capitale du Cambodge. Wrag a été interpellé sous le motif d'aide à violation des droits d'auteur via son célèbre site suédois dédié au partage de fichiers torrents, Pirate Bay. Selon les autorités du Cambodge, cette arrestation ferait suite à la demande des autorités suédoises. [IMG]http://idelways.developpez.com/news/images/the-pirate-bay.jpg[/IMG] En dépit d...

    Read the article

  • How can I get 32-bit Direct3D working on my 64-bit Windows 7 system?

    - by Daniel Stutzbach
    I recently upgraded a Dell Inspiron 6400 to Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit. I have a 32-bit 3D application that refuses to run, giving an error of "Failed to initialise [sic] Direct3D device". The dxdiag tool tells me: DirectDraw Acceleration: Enabled Direct3D Acceleration: Not Available However, the 64-bit version of dxdiag tells me: DirectDraw Acceleration: Enabled Direct3D: Enabled I have installed and re-installed the latest graphics drivers, as well as the DirectX 9 redistributable, but it stills fails in the same way. dxdiag reports the chipset name as the "Mobile Intel(R) 945 Express Chipset Family" with the the Chip Type as "Intel(R) GMA 950". The main driver is igdumd64.dll, version 8.15.10.1930. How can I get 32-bit Direct3D working?

    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

  • Publisher 2007 files created on Vista 32 bit won't open on Vista 64 bit

    - by BBlack
    I created several documents in MS Office Publisher 2007 when I was using Windows Vista 32 bit version. I've recently upgraded to the 64 bit version of Vista and am now having trouble opening the files created on the previous Windows setup. When I try to open my documents, I get this warning: Publisher can not open the document. How do I go about resolving this?

    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

  • 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

  • Share USB devices between 32 bit and 64 bit systems

    - by Sreejith S
    The latest version of USBDeviceShare, the USB over IP software, supports sharing USB devices between 32 bit and 64 bit editions of Windows. A USB device plugged in to a 64 bit PC running 64 bit version of Windows can be shared and remotely accessed from a 32 bit PC and vice versa. Download USBDeviceShare USB over Network software from http://www.sysnucleus.com/usbshare/usbshare_download.html Keywords : USB over Ethernet, USB Server, Remote USB Access, Share USB

    Read the article

  • 64 bit Windows 7 + 32 bit windows XP dual boot?

    - by Mick
    I have purchased an i7 based PC pre-installed with 64 bit windows 7 (home premium). Unfortunately some third party 32 bit software that I need to use is not working properly (see stackoverflow.com for details). I am now torn between the plan of installing windows XP 32 bit or making it dual boot. Which option do you think will give me the least problems? And if the answer is dual boot, then can you point me to a good guide for how to do it, preferably a guide specifically for my two OS's created in this order (i.e. 7x64 first). EDIT: the performance of my 32bit programs is critical so am concerned about any kind of 32bit XP "emulation".

    Read the article

  • install 64-bit glib2 on 32-bit system for cross-compiling

    - by paleozogt
    I'm trying to cross-compile a 64-bit executable on a 32-bit ubuntu system. This works up until linking, where it fails due to the lack of a 64-bit glib2 (libglib-2.0.a). If I were doing this on a 64-bit system, I would use getlibs to install a 32-bit glib2 into /usr/lib32. However, on a 32-bit machine getlibs doesn't seem to do the opposite-- install a 64-bit glib2 into /usr/lib64. My quesiton is: how do I manually do what getlibs should do, that is, install a 64-bit glib2 into /usr/lib64?

    Read the article

  • .NET 3.5SP1 64-bit memory model vs. 32-bit memory model

    - by James Dunne
    As I understand it, the .NET memory model on a 32-bit machine guarantees 32-bit word writes and reads to be atomic operations but does not provide this guarantee on 64-bit words. I have written a quick tool to demonstrate this effect on a Windows XP 32-bit OS and am getting results consistent with that memory model description. However, I have taken this same tool's executable and run it on a Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit OS and am getting wildly different results. Both the machines are identical specs just with different OSes installed. I would have expected that the .NET memory model would guarantee writes and reads to BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit words to be atomic on a 64-bit OS. I find results completely contrary to BOTH assumptions. 32-bit reads and writes are not demonstrated to be atomic on this OS. Can someone explain to me why this fails on a 64-bit OS? Tool code: using System; using System.Threading; namespace ConsoleApplication1 { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var th = new Thread(new ThreadStart(RunThread)); var th2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(RunThread)); int lastRecordedInt = 0; long lastRecordedLong = 0L; th.Start(); th2.Start(); while (!done) { int newIntValue = intValue; long newLongValue = longValue; if (lastRecordedInt > newIntValue) Console.WriteLine("BING(int)! {0} > {1}, {2}", lastRecordedInt, newIntValue, (lastRecordedInt - newIntValue)); if (lastRecordedLong > newLongValue) Console.WriteLine("BING(long)! {0} > {1}, {2}", lastRecordedLong, newLongValue, (lastRecordedLong - newLongValue)); lastRecordedInt = newIntValue; lastRecordedLong = newLongValue; } th.Join(); th2.Join(); Console.WriteLine("{0} =? {2}, {1} =? {3}", intValue, longValue, Int32.MaxValue / 2, (long)Int32.MaxValue + (Int32.MaxValue / 2)); } private static long longValue = Int32.MaxValue; private static int intValue; private static bool done = false; static void RunThread() { for (int i = 0; i < Int32.MaxValue / 4; ++i) { ++longValue; ++intValue; } done = true; } } } Results on Windows XP 32-bit: Windows XP 32-bit Intel Core2 Duo P8700 @ 2.53GHz BING(long)! 2161093208 > 2161092246, 962 BING(long)! 2162448397 > 2161273312, 1175085 BING(long)! 2270110050 > 2270109040, 1010 BING(long)! 2270115061 > 2270110059, 5002 BING(long)! 2558052223 > 2557528157, 524066 BING(long)! 2571660540 > 2571659563, 977 BING(long)! 2646433569 > 2646432557, 1012 BING(long)! 2660841714 > 2660840732, 982 BING(long)! 2661795522 > 2660841715, 953807 BING(long)! 2712855281 > 2712854239, 1042 BING(long)! 2737627472 > 2735210929, 2416543 1025780885 =? 1073741823, 3168207035 =? 3221225470 Notice how BING(int) is never written and demonstrates that 32-bit reads/writes are atomic on this 32-bit OS. Results on Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit: Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit Intel Core2 Duo P8700 @ 2.53GHz BING(long)! 2208482159 > 2208121217, 360942 BING(int)! 280292777 > 279704627, 588150 BING(int)! 308158865 > 308131694, 27171 BING(long)! 2549116628 > 2548884894, 231734 BING(int)! 534815527 > 534708027, 107500 BING(int)! 545113548 > 544270063, 843485 BING(long)! 2710030799 > 2709941968, 88831 BING(int)! 668662394 > 667539649, 1122745 1006355562 =? 1073741823, 3154727581 =? 3221225470 Notice that BING(long) AND BING(int) are both displayed! Why are the 32-bit operations failing, let alone the 64-bit ones?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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