On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ramnarayan.K <ramnaraya...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Ritesh Sinha <sinha.k.rit...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> >> I don't think this is a big deal (well apart from the Geode issue >> which is quite problematic and should be patched). Most desktop >> systems today are running i686 and systems that require 586 support >> can stick with the LTS which already supports them. > >> I do not >> understand the need to upgrade to the latest and greatest if you have >> a machine that is working as required with the LTS. > > Am still running 9.10 and am happy with it and will only move up when > access to the whole set of tools that i need is available. (meaning > either offline repos or broad band) > >> It was inevitable, probably in a few years one would see >> dropped support for 32 bit architectures. > > so is it better for people buying new machines to think in terms of 64 bit ??
You shouldn't have to worry about that. As far as I know _all_ newer processors support 64 bit instructions (Intel Core Series/Newer Atoms, AMD Athlons/Phenoms). > > >>> ** >>> To find out what processor you have use this in the command line > ~$ uname -m > i686 > > So will probably survive the meerket progress :-) > > and for any older machines (which according to a reponse in the > article are processors older than 1996- whoah way way back so i think > most people would be safe ) people can search for an appropriate small > version of linux of which there are plenty Exactly. They can also stick with the version that is already working for them. > > -- > ubuntu-in mailing list > ubuntu-in@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in > -- Sent using the magic of the interwebs. http://ritesh.posterous.com -- ubuntu-in mailing list ubuntu-in@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in
