|
On 06/16/2013 08:39 AM, Jonathan
Marsden wrote:
No bug. Nothing to fix. I just find it easier. I may be accused of living in the past, but in my opinion, for now, there is more stability, less work-arounds needed, and more software available for 32bit. Plus, as I am usually installing on smaller hard drives and almost never have more than 2GB of RAM on a single computer (in fact my usual is somewhere between 512MB and 1 GB); there is less memory usage with a 32 bit OS and software. Since this 32bit OS works on both 32bit and 64bit machines, I would choose, for now, the 32bit version. For me its like the difference between the IPv4 and IPv6 Internet protocols. The IPv6 technology is great for the future, but in my opinion, for the average user today; it isn't quite ready for prime-time. I am not what they call an early-adapter though. I tend to get everything from software to cell phones to cars after it's been "tried and true" for a good long time.On 06/16/2013 06:40 AM, Eric Bradshaw wrote:One thing I'd like to add is I don't mess with the 64bit installers - there is nothing wrong with installing a 32bit Lubuntu on a 64bit machine and (for me) makes it easier going forward.Can you explain why? What is the issue with the 64bit installer, and have you filed a Launchpad bug about it, so we can duplicate the issue and (hopefully) fix it? I don't think the installed 10.04 would break the 12.10 installer at all. However, a "clean" install of the OS is better - in my opinion. The 12.10 installer doesn't truly erase the old info off the hard drive when it says, "Erase and Install..." but DBAN does.I also think you should wipe the hard drive clean first with DBANCan you explain the reason for this? How and why would the installed 10.04 break the 12.10 installer? Thanks,Thanks, Jonathan Eric |
-- Lubuntu-users mailing list Lubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users
