Contmultipart/mixed;
boundary="Add_By_Label_Mail_Nextpart_001"
X-Complaints-To: use...@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: chello062178025100.9.11.vie.surfer.at
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-From: debian-user@li
>>> If you have other i386 machines around, it may be convenient for you to
>>> keep the same architecture so you can share the download bandwidth of
>>> Debian updates, and things like that.
> On the other hand, now might be a good time to begin the migration to the
> future. 32-bits will be arou
>>> The 64-bit vs 32-bit argument is multi-faceted. It gets much deeper than
>>> just addressing more than 3GB of RAM:
>>> * twice the transfer width on the bus
>> Nope, no difference on the bus. Most accesses will be
>> cache-line-sized anyway at that level.
> You're kidding, right?
Not at all
>> I for one want to get my money out of my hardware. If
>> you don't want a 64-bit system, then why did you pay for it?
> +1
Very few people pay for 64bit and most of those who pay are the same
who used to pay for GHz rather than for performance (read: Pentium 4).
Stefan
--
To UNSUBS
Aaron Toponce wrote:
> To each their own. I for one want to get my money out of my hardware. If
> you don't want a 64-bit system, then why did you pay for it?
I can witness exactly what you've written after migrating to 64bit kernel
and os. It's faster and safer on the same machine with 2GB RAM.
If you have other i386 machines around, it may be convenient for you to
keep the same architecture so you can share the download bandwidth of
Debian updates, and things like that.
On the other hand, now might be a good time to begin the migration to
the future. 32-bits will be around for a lon
On 5/12/2010 10:41 PM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
I for one want to get my money out of my hardware. If
you don't want a 64-bit system, then why did you pay for it?
+1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@l
On 05/12/2010 07:03 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> The 64-bit vs 32-bit argument is multi-faceted. It gets much deeper than
>> just addressing more than 3GB of RAM:
>> * twice the transfer width on the bus
>
> Nope, no difference on the bus. Most accesses will be
> cache-line-sized anyway at that
> The 64-bit vs 32-bit argument is multi-faceted. It gets much deeper than
> just addressing more than 3GB of RAM:
> * twice the transfer width on the bus
Nope, no difference on the bus. Most accesses will be
cache-line-sized anyway at that level.
> * no memory split issues
For <=3GB systems,
Aaron Toponce wrote:
>
> If you have the hardware, you should definitely be running a 64-bit
> operating system, even if you don't have 4GB+ of RAM.
>
+1
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debia
On 05/13/2010 12:31 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
On 5/12/2010 2:53 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
I'd go with an i386 install unless you have more than 3GB of RAM, in
which case I'd go with an amd64 install (or an i386 with a 686-bigmem
kernel).
The 64-bit vs 32-bit argument is multi-faceted.
On 5/12/2010 2:53 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I'd go with an i386 install unless you have more than 3GB of RAM, in
> which case I'd go with an amd64 install (or an i386 with a 686-bigmem
> kernel).
The 64-bit vs 32-bit argument is multi-faceted. It gets much deeper than
just addressing more than 3
On 05/12/2010 03:53 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
What would it be the recommended architecture/versioin to choose for
download an install?
I'd go with an i386 install unless you have more than 3GB of RAM, in
which case I'd go with an amd64 install (or an i386 with a 686-bigmem
kernel).
Or i386 w
> What would it be the recommended architecture/versioin to choose for
> download an install?
I'd go with an i386 install unless you have more than 3GB of RAM, in
which case I'd go with an amd64 install (or an i386 with a 686-bigmem
kernel).
If you have other i386 machines around, it may be conven
On Tue, 11 May 2010 11:28:00 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:48, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:26:21 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>>
Users having problems with flash plugin on their 64 bits OS can
install a 32 bits browser and run the 32 bits plugin
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:32, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
> I am curious, did you all receive duplicates of my last reply?
Yep
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.deb
I am curious, did you all receive duplicates of my last reply?
--
Jordan Metzmeier
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 09:48, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:26:21 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>
>>> Users having problems with flash plugin on their 64 bits OS can install
>>> a 32 bits browser and run the 32 bits plugin, which is annoying but it
>>> should work.
>>>
>>>
>> Does thi
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:15, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:07, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kelly Clowers
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:56, Jordan Metzmeier
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Adobe's 64bit flash player does not funct
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:07, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kelly Clowers
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:56, Jordan Metzmeier
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Adobe's 64bit flash player does not function on all the sites
>> > that the 32bit plugin will.
>>
>> [cit
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:56, Jordan Metzmeier
> wrote:
> >
> > Adobe's 64bit flash player does not function on all the sites
> > that the 32bit plugin will.
>
> [citation needed]
>
>
> Cheers,
> Kelly Clowers
>
>
Again, sorry if this is a
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kelly Clowers
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:56, Jordan Metzmeier
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Adobe's 64bit flash player does not function on all the sites
>>> > that the 32bit plugin wi
On 05/11/2010 09:02 PM, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:56, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
Adobe's 64bit flash player does not function on all the sites
that the 32bit plugin will.
[citation needed]
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
I call bulls**t.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:56, Jordan Metzmeier
> wrote:
> >
> > Adobe's 64bit flash player does not function on all the sites
> > that the 32bit plugin will.
>
> [citation needed]
>
>
> Cheers,
> Kelly Clowers
>
>
> https://bugs.adobe.com/j
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 06:56, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>
> Adobe's 64bit flash player does not function on all the sites
> that the 32bit plugin will.
[citation needed]
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
> 1/ Firefox can be downloaded from Mozilla site (and Mozilla does not
> provide a 64-bit version for their browser, only 32-bit binaries). Once
> downloaded, no need to install anything, just click and run. Then, you
> can download the flash plugin (32 bits) and store it under Firefox
> plugins fo
On Tue, 11 May 2010 12:26:21 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>> Users having problems with flash plugin on their 64 bits OS can install
>> a 32 bits browser and run the 32 bits plugin, which is annoying but it
>> should work.
>>
>>
> Does this work natively or does it require a chroot?
Natively...
> Users having problems with flash plugin on their 64 bits OS can install a
> 32 bits browser and run the 32 bits plugin, which is annoying but it
> should work.
>
Does this work natively or does it require a chroot?
Sorry if this is a duplicate, I got a bounce back from the first time
I attempte
> Users having problems with flash plugin on their 64 bits OS can install a
> 32 bits browser and run the 32 bits plugin, which is annoying but it
> should work.
>
Does this work natively or does it require a chroot?
--
Jordan Metzmeier
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.de
On Tue, 11 May 2010 11:27:14 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> Any other failing site that can be tested by the mere non-US mortals?
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
> Not that I know of. Doing a google search, it looks like hulu may be the
> only issue. I had p
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:06:46 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:56:49 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
There are still minor issues with 64bit desk
On Tue, 11 May 2010 10:06:46 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:56:49 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> There are still minor issues with 64bit desktops. For example, Adobe's
>>> 64bit flash player does not f
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 19:26, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Oscar Corte
> wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > I would like to test Debian on a new PC.
> >
> > It's a DELL XPS Inspiron 8100 with a Core i5 64 bits processor.
> >
> > What would it be the recommended architecture/ve
Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>> --
>> Camaleón
>>
>
> http://hulu.com is an example. AFAIK its only available to people with
> U.S. IPs.
>
I'm in europe and it's working fine, though it said that it can not show
video because of 64bit limitation on linux.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:56:49 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
>
> (...)
>
>> There are still minor issues with 64bit desktops. For example,
>> Adobe's 64bit flash player does not function on all the sites that the
>> 32bit plugin will.
>
> First ti
On Tue, 11 May 2010 09:56:49 -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote:
(...)
> There are still minor issues with 64bit desktops. For example,
> Adobe's 64bit flash player does not function on all the sites that the
> 32bit plugin will.
First time I hear such statement.
Can you please provide a sample of f
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Oscar Corte wrote:
> Hi:
>
> I would like to test Debian on a new PC.
>
> It's a DELL XPS Inspiron 8100 with a Core i5 64 bits processor.
>
> What would it be the recommended architecture/versioin to choose for
> download an install?
>
> Could Intel IA-64 work righ
On 05/11/2010 04:40 PM, Oscar Corte wrote:
Hi:
I would like to test Debian on a new PC.
It's a DELL XPS Inspiron 8100 with a Core i5 64 bits processor.
What would it be the recommended architecture/versioin to choose for
download an install?
Could Intel IA-64 work right?
Regards
--
Hi:
I would like to test Debian on a new PC.
It's a DELL XPS Inspiron 8100 with a Core i5 64 bits processor.
What would it be the recommended architecture/versioin to choose for download
an install?
Could Intel IA-64 work right?
Regards
Lee Braiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday 28 Jun 2005 22:37, Andreas Goesele wrote:
>> What is recommended in a case lake that? Using unpatched kernel.org
>> sources or taking the patched sources from unstable or testing? What
>> are the advantages and disadvantages? Are there other alt
On Tuesday 28 Jun 2005 22:37, Andreas Goesele wrote:
> What is recommended in a case lake that? Using unpatched kernel.org
> sources or taking the patched sources from unstable or testing? What
> are the advantages and disadvantages? Are there other alternatives?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Hi,
there's a bug (#315968) in the 2.6.8 kernel provided with Debian
stable, which prevents me using usb sticks. I therefore moved to
kernel 2.6.11.5 which I got directly from kernel.org without any
Debian patches. An alternative would have been to use the kernel
source from Debian unstable.
What
I admit that I might've been a little too hard on them, yes. But I've
heard much more good about Debian, and the examples about getting things
to work were true. But of course Mandrake can't be that bad, otherwise no
one would use it. It's just that I find Debian, both in abilities,
features and id
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:22, Teppo Hytönen wrote:
> What comes to choosing between the two, it's personal preference that
> matters. I myself recommend Debian: I love it myself, and yes, apt-get is
> great. Then again, I haven't used Mandrake, but haven't heard a single
> positive comment about it,
44 matches
Mail list logo
