Problem installing from alternate CD

[Ali Linx (amjjawad)]

>
> I suspect we have the same problem with 64-bit addressing, as compared to
> 32-bit addressing.  All memory-references are now twice the size than they
> used to be, so the compiled programs are a lot larger because of that
> necessity.
>


> But with 64-bit architecture, you can address a exponentially more memory
> than with 32-bit architecture.  The ironic part of that, is that you need
> more memory because the programs must be much bigger than they used to be.


Hi there,

I'm NOT a programmer nor a developer so I too won't get into deep details
about that.
>From my humble understanding and experience:

If your machine (hardware) is 64bit AND have 4GB of RAM or more, you need
to use 64bit OS (recommended)

If your machine (hardware) is 64bit AND have 3GB of RAM or less, you don't
really need to use 64bit OS and you can use 32bit OS.

As for software/programs, 32bit programs will work on both the 32bit
hardware (machines) and the 64bit machines.

If your machine is 32bit, then you can only use 32bit OS and programs.

For example, I have a 64bit P4 but only 488MB RAM so I don't bother and
install the 64bit version of Lubuntu.
I have read an article before, not really sure where to find it now that OS
with 64bit will have  more RAM usage than the same system but the 32bit
version.



On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM, Aere Greenway <Aere at dvorak-keyboards.com>wrote:

All:
>
> I keep forgetting about 64-bit systems, because I usually don't use them.
>  My e-mail reflected that unconscious assumption.
>
> I don't know how the internal architecture actually works now, so what I
> say here is based on my experience when we migrated from 16-bit addressing
> to 32-bit addressing.
>
> I won't get into the nitty-gritty details too much, but back then, it
> seemed appalling how much larger the 32-bit addressing programs were than
> the 16-bit.  Yet it was better because we could directly address a larger
> memory space without having to separate areas of memory into segments that
> could be accessed with a 16-bit address-range.
>
> The reason the programs were so much larger, is that in the actual
> machine-language program resulting from compiling a computer language,
> everywhere it referenced memory, it now took 32-bits, rather than the
> 16-bits we were used-to.  So the same programs we were used to (using in
> the earlier architecture) were now a lot larger than they used to be.
>
> I suspect we have the same problem with 64-bit addressing, as compared to
> 32-bit addressing.  All memory-references are now twice the size than they
> used to be, so the compiled programs are a lot larger because of that
> necessity.
>
> But with 64-bit architecture, you can address a exponentially more memory
> than with 32-bit architecture.  The ironic part of that, is that you need
> more memory because the programs must be much bigger than they used to be.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Aere
>
>
>
> --
> Lubuntu-users mailing list
> Lubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/**
> mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users<https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-users>
>



-- 
*Best Regards,
amjjawad*
*https://wiki.ubuntu.com/amjjawad/*
Lubuntu One Stop Thread <http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1844755>| My
Launchpad <https://launchpad.net/%7Eamjjawad> | My Ubuntu Forum
Profile<http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=941822>
**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/lubuntu-users/attachments/20130207/2dd600cf/attachment-0001.html>