Search Results

Search found 61378 results on 2456 pages for 'windows 7 64'.

Page 1/2456 | 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Windows 7 on a 64-bit computer

  - by GetFree

  I read on Wikipedia that Windows 7 on a 64-bit PC needs twice as much RAM as on a 32-bit PC. I understand why is that: every number stored in memory takes 8 bytes rather than just 4. That, in simple terms, means that your amount of RAM is reduced to half when you use Windows 7 on a 64-bit computer. Now, I have a Intel Core 2 Duo Laptop with Windows Vista right now (2 GB of RAM). My question is: Since Core 2 is a 64-bit architecture, if I upgrade to Windows 7 will my laptop be working as if it had just 1 GB of RAM? Or... to say it in other words: Having a 64-bit PC with Windows 7 do you need twice as much RAM as you need on a 32-bit PC to have the same performance? If I am right, then I'd say it's a terrible business to have a 64-bit computer and Windows 7 on it (I hope I am mistaken, though). Follow-up: After some answers, I'm realizing it's not the same thing to have a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit PC than a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit PC. Apparently, the problem of Windows 7 requiring twice as much RAM on 64-bit architectures is when you have both the OS and PC supporting 64 bits. I'd like new answers to address this issue. Also, is it possible to have more that 4 GB of RAM on a 64-bit PC using a 32-bit version of Windows?

  Read the article

• Windows 7 on a 64-bit computer

  - by GetFree

  I read on Wikipedia that Windows 7 on a 64-bit PC needs twice as much RAM as on a 32-bit PC. I understand why is that: every number stored in memory takes 8 bytes rather than just 4. That, in simple terms, means that your amount of RAM is reduced to half when you use Windows 7 on a 64-bit computer. Now, I have a Intel Core 2 Duo Laptop with Windows Vista right now (2 GB of RAM). My question is: Since Core 2 is a 64-bit architecture, if I upgrade to Windows 7 will my laptop be working as if it had just 1 GB of RAM? Or... to say it in other words: Having a 64-bit PC with Windows 7 do you need twice as much RAM as you need on a 32-bit PC to have the same performance? If I am right, then I'd say it's a terrible business to have a 64-bit computer and Windows 7 on it (I hope I am mistaken, though). Follow-up: After some answers, I'm realizing it's not the same thing to have a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit PC than a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit PC. Apparently, the problem of Windows 7 requiring twice as much RAM on 64-bit architectures is when you have both the OS and PC supporting 64 bits. I'd like new answers to address this issue. Also, is it possible to have more that 4 GB of RAM on a 64-bit PC using a 32-bit version of Windows?

  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

• 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

• 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

• Error installing Windows7 64 bits on VirtualBox

  - by MetaDark

  I am trying to set up Windows in Virtual Box, so I don't need to reboot in the rare occasion that I actually need it. The problem is, Virtual Box doesn't preform any errors when I insert the 32bit installation CD but when I try to use the 64bit installation; What!? I am already using the installation disc! I've checked my BIOS to see if I have SVM (AMD's version of VT) disabled and all I see is "Enabled" I have a K9N6PGM2-V2 motherboard A Triple Core AMD Athlon II A Nvdia NForce 430 integrated graphics card 4GB of RAM An 80GB IDE And a 1TB SATA I don't think the last three specifications matter but just in case XP I am pretty sure the CD isn't broken ( I am going to make sure in just a moment ), what could be the cause to this problem? Edit: The 64bit installation CD is not broken, but I found out when trying to install from the 32bit version that it's trying to upgrade, not preform a fresh install - Odd.

  Read the article

• 64 bit vs 32 bit

  - by user53864

  When I was doing my course MCSA, I'm taught the following: With a 32-bit processor only 32-bit operating system can be installed. with a 64-bit processor both 32-bit & 64-bit operating system can be installed It's said 64-bit os cannot be installed on a 32-bit processor. I just want to make sure the above points because recently I'm asked to installed Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprize and while installation it showed only x64 and it simply installed it. I was thinking all the computers in my office having a 32-bit processor. If so how it could be possible to install a x64 bit os on a 32-bit processor? or I'm wrong with the 1st point or the processor may be of 64-bit(I don't know how to check). I'm confused... One thing what I know the benefits of 64-bit over 32-bit is faster operation. If anyone could tell me other benefits, it could be helpful for me. Thanks!

  Read the article

• 64 bit vs 32 bit

  - by user51737

  When I was doing my course MCSA, I'm taught the following: With a 32-bit processor only 32-bit operating system can be installed. with a 64-bit processor both 32-bit & 64-bit operating system can be installed It's said 64-bit os cannot be installed on a 32-bit processor. I just want to make sure the above points because recently I'm asked to installed Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprize and while installation it showed only x64 and it simply installed it. I was thinking all the computers in my office having a 32-bit processor. If so how it could be possible to install a x64 bit os on a 32-bit processor? or I'm wrong with the 1st point or the processor may be of 64-bit(I don't know how to check). I'm confused... One thing what I know the benefits of 64-bit over 32-bit is faster operation. If anyone could tell me other benefits, it could be helpful for me. Thanks!

  Read the article

• "This CPU is not compatible with 64-bit mode." - Installing Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit on a netbook with a 64-bit Intel Atom CPU

  - by galacticninja

  I tried installing Windows 7 Ultimate SP 1, 64-bit on a netbook (Lenovo IdeaPad S110), which has the Intel Atom N2800 (1.86 GHz) as its processor, but I get the following error message when the Windows 7 installation DVD is loading: It says "Attempting to load a 64-bit application, however this CPU is not compatible with 64-bit mode". The Intel Atom N2800 is a 64-bit CPU according to its webpage. I am wondering why the Windows 7 installer shows this error message, despite this. Is there something I must configure first before installing Windows 7, 64-bit? Or is the netbook not compatible with a 64-bit OS? I am trying to format the netbook and install Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, instead. Other details: The netbook has 2 GB RAM. The netbook initially had Windows 7 Starter (32-bit) installed.

  Read the article

• How to build 64-bit Python on OS X 10.6 -- ONLY 64 bit, no Universal nonsense

  - by ssteiner

  I just want to build this on my development machine -- the binary install from Python.org is still 32 bits and installing extensions (MySQLdb, for example) is driving me nuts with trying to figure out the proper flags for each and every extension. Clarification: I did NOT replace the system Python, I just installed the Python.org binary into its normal place at /Library/..., not /System/Library/.... Everything else seems to build 64 bit by default, and the default Python 2.6.1 was 64 bit (before I replaced it with the Python.org build figuring it was a direct replacement)` I just want a 64 bit only build that will run on my one machine without any cruft. Does anyone have a simple answer? Thanks much, [email protected]

  Read the article

• Installing a new hardware enablement (HWE) stack in 64 bit Ubuntu

  - by Alexey

  I'd like to install 13.10 (Saucy) hardware enablement (HWE) stack to my Ubuntu 12.04 (64-bit) because I need a newer Linux kernel. This wiki page explains what "hardware enablement stacks" are. Among other things it says: Only the -generic x86 kernel flavor ... will be supported... Also, this answer says: ...This is only recommended for x86 hardware installations... Is x86 here synonymous to 32-bit/i386 architecture (but not 64-bit/AMD64), or is it i386/AMD64 (but not ARM)? Can I install this "hardware enablement stack" in a 64-bit/AMD64 Ubuntu? Will it be supported with future updates?

  Read the article

• Does 64-bit Ubuntu work on the Acer Aspire One D255

  - by hippietrail

  The Acer Aspire One D255 is the cheapest dual core netbook on the market right now. It has an Intel Atom N550 which should be able to run a 64-bit OS. But when I try to boot the Ubuntu 64-bit live CD I only get one line of diagnostic output that it "found something" on the USB CD drive before locking up. I haven't been able to find anything by Googling yet. Could it just be driver issues for this machine or could the platform be inherently frail for running 64-bit? (My machine is two days old on trial and Windows 7 and Ubuntu 32-bit run but it has locked up under casual use on both OSes.)

  Read the article

• installing ubuntu 13.04 along side window 7 64 bit

  - by Shikhar Subedi

  I have a 64 bit computer with windows OS. Here are my specifications: core i3 processor 4 gb ram nvdia ge210 hard disk with 680 gb memory In my windows installation I have C: drive with 104 gb, D: drive with 246gb and E: drive with 246gb memory. My dvd rom is in f: drive. I want to install ubuntu 13.04 64 bit along side windows 7. So i burned the ubuntu 64 bit iso image onto a dvd and restarted the computer. but in the choice for installations, there is no option to select installing ubuntu along side windows. There is an option to install ubuntu inside windows instead. There are other options as well. What should I do to get the option to install ubuntu along side windows. I think the problem is with the number of drives in windows. Please tell me how should I make a partition in windows 7 to install ubuntu. Thanks a lot..

  Read the article

• Windows 7 64-bit installation from alternative media (no DVD/USB Flash drive)

  - by Niels Willems

  Greetings I currently have Windows 7 x86 installed on my computer. I want to install Windows 7 x64 on a different partition on my computer. However there is a little issue, I cannot run the x64 install from Windows 7 x86 which I currently have. I was planning to Install Windows 7 x64 on another partition to then boot up from that partition to install it on the partition I actually want my OS on. Once that is complete I could just format the partition from the Windows 7 x64 that I didn't need anymore. But the installer will not run from the x86 version of Windows 7 even though I do not want to upgrade that Windows directly. The reason I'm doing this in such a weird way is that my optical drive is broken and I'm really not into buying a new one since I would use it like once every year or so. I also don't have a USB Flash Drive which is big enough to hold the installation files. As far as I'm aware I cannot use an external hard drive such as this one, which I do have. Are there any alternatives in which I can install Windows 7 x64 or am I forced into buying a USB Flash Drive or new optical drive? Thank you in advance for your replies. Edit: This picture shows my current partitions on my laptop. I want to get Windows 7 x64 on the C partition but have to install it first on the F partition to then boot up the F partition windows to format C and install x64 on that one. My external drive is J. Edit 2: No alternative computer which has a DVD drive, install files are located on an iso from MA3D. To install my 32 bit version I mounted the ISO in Daemon Tools to replace my Windows Vista but since I cannot run 64 bit into my 32 bit OS this doesn't work.

  Read the article

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