Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu 64-bit not recommended for daily use?
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Markie wrote: > > I thought there was something that I hadnt noticed that was going to pop up > later. Im using this on my everyday work laptop so I just wanted to check > there was nothing that meant I needed to go back to 32-bit. Better to do it > now than later. > The only issue that I had with 64bit was some browser plugins (Logmein specifically) being incompatible with the 64 bit version, but nspluginwrapper fixed that :) -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu 64-bit not recommended for daily use?
Hi Alan On 1 June 2010 09:39, Alan Pope wrote: > For many > it will work fine, but for most people there's little or no advantage > to using 64-bit Linux over 32-bit. > > True, Ive not seen any difference in how it "feels" , all seems the same Why worry if it's working fine for you? > > I thought there was something that I hadnt noticed that was going to pop up later. Im using this on my everyday work laptop so I just wanted to check there was nothing that meant I needed to go back to 32-bit. Better to do it now than later. Thanks for clarifying this Mark -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu 64-bit not recommended for daily use?
Hi, On 1 June 2010 09:33, Markie wrote: > Does any one know why on the ubuntu site here > > http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download > They say 64-bit is not recommended for daily useage? It's duff wording but I can see what it's trying to say. If you had 10 seconds to explain to someone the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit, and do they want/need it, it's not as easy as it sounds. Whilst 64-bit might be fine for many people there are some that would have issues with applications they want to run on top of it. For many it will work fine, but for most people there's little or no advantage to using 64-bit Linux over 32-bit. > A bug has been entered in launchpad > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/585940 > There's quite a few bugs filed against the new website and the people behind it are working hard to fix all the issues. This is just one of many. > Any comments on why this was on the ubuntu page? Im concerned as Im using > 64-bit now for the last few weeks previously I was using 32-bit > Why worry if it's working fine for you? Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
[ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu 64-bit not recommended for daily use?
Does any one know why on the ubuntu site here http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download They say 64-bit is not recommended for daily useage? A bug has been entered in launchpad https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-website/+bug/585940 Any comments on why this was on the ubuntu page? Im concerned as Im using 64-bit now for the last few weeks previously I was using 32-bit Thanks Mark -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu 64 bit - GRUB
I have been using KGRUBEditor and love it, Not sure if it is Grub 2 complient as yet but hey I have a nice splash / back ground image when I have the option to load the OS and I can also do a load of settings from there... I also tried Startup Manager also but it is not by far as nice as KGrubEditor... -- _ Cornelius Mostert Senior IT Specialist United Kingdom: 075 2233 4818 International: 0044 75 2233 4818 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu 64 bit
On 2 March 2010 01:57, A J Binnie wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I joined this list a couple of weeks ago, and tonight I've had my first > reason to post something. Been using Ubuntu on and off since 6.06 and with > every release I'm getting closer to making it my main OS (I dual-boot with > Windows Vista at the moment, which is my main reason for finally wanting to > ditch Windows...) > > Until now I've always used 32-bit versions of Ubuntu and was happily > running 9.10 on this machine. Tonight, though, I decided to do a fresh > install and go with the 64-bit version. I was hitherto unaware that my > machine would support it, but that turned out not to be the case. > > What's annoying me is that I have a list of kernels that appear on the GRUB > menu that I no longer have installed. Indeed, when I try to boot into any of > them, the boot process stops. I deleted all the partitions that Ubuntu > originally resided on and recreated them all from scratch, so I can only > assume that the grub list that comes up is stored in the MBR, which should, > in theory, be on my main windows partition. > > Back in the old days I was able to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst or something > similar... where are the grub configuration files kept these days? There > seems to be quite a change in 9.10. > > Thanks in advance. > > Gus > > -- > ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ > i believe as of 9.10 the default bootlader is now grub2 instead of grub. grub2 has a different menu setup and more features. There is still a menu file. /boot/grub/grub.conf You should not edit this by hand though. more info here http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1195275 azmodie -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
[ubuntu-uk] Ubuntu 64 bit
Hi Folks, I joined this list a couple of weeks ago, and tonight I've had my first reason to post something. Been using Ubuntu on and off since 6.06 and with every release I'm getting closer to making it my main OS (I dual-boot with Windows Vista at the moment, which is my main reason for finally wanting to ditch Windows...) Until now I've always used 32-bit versions of Ubuntu and was happily running 9.10 on this machine. Tonight, though, I decided to do a fresh install and go with the 64-bit version. I was hitherto unaware that my machine would support it, but that turned out not to be the case. What's annoying me is that I have a list of kernels that appear on the GRUB menu that I no longer have installed. Indeed, when I try to boot into any of them, the boot process stops. I deleted all the partitions that Ubuntu originally resided on and recreated them all from scratch, so I can only assume that the grub list that comes up is stored in the MBR, which should, in theory, be on my main windows partition. Back in the old days I was able to edit /boot/grub/menu.lst or something similar... where are the grub configuration files kept these days? There seems to be quite a change in 9.10. Thanks in advance. Gus -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
