32 or 64??

Karl F. Larsen klarsen1 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 22:40:01 UTC 2010

Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 1:41 AM, Chadley Wilson <chadleyw at pinnacle.co.za> wrote:
>> I have to comment on this, to make a decision about the platform you wish to use 32 or 64 bit, in my experience asking a public forum is only going to spark divided arguments. You see it is a preference more than a requirement. And we are all very eager to show off our skills. So this type of question never gets a straight answer.
>> 64bit will eventually become the standard, and 128bit will be.. well what 64bit is now. So it is not really matter of must or must not. It is a matter of choice.


	I just loaded a partition /dev/sda2 on my computer with a 
downloaded 9.10 64 bit .iso and it loaded just exactly like 
the 32 bit 9.10 I am using now did. I checked the cd-rom and 
it is perfect.

	On the hard drive it came up fitting the 17 inch liquid 
crystal monitor and looking good. It wanted to load a special 
image software that will allow 3d and such. I went to 
/etc/fstab and added a line that brings in my 32 bit 
/home/karl that is on /dev/sda12.

	This was too much it seems. The 64 bit came up in 640x1200 or 
like that and it looks terrible.

	I will stop loading the old 32bit /karl and see if it looks 

	If anyone has ideas on how to load the 32bit /home/karl on a 
64bit 9.10 I would like to hear them.

73 Karl


	Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
	Linux User
	#450462   http://counter.li.org.
         Key ID = 3951B48D

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list