32 or 64??
johnneylee.rollins at gmail.com
Sun Jan 31 00:43:51 UTC 2010
> Why is this question ever asked? There are people who use 64
> bit and are fat,dumb, and happy. There are people who use 32
> bit and are fat,dumb, and happy.
Karl, I am assuming you are talking about yourself, I am a young spry
youth in tip top shape, kindly don't apply your physical downfalls to
all of the ubuntu users. You don't understand why you would use one
architecture over another, so really you're just making yourself look
really really stupid. I like to forward the threads that you've
commented on to my nerdy friends who know anything linux, and we sit
and laugh for hours. About being dumb, I'm sure the only asshat is
OP: I would personally use 64-bit as there is no limitation involved.
You can install and use 32-bit applications as well as native 64-bit
ones, and along that line I would install firefox and flash 32-bit for
stability. If you use 32-bit you can't address all your ram and use it
appropriately. If you'd like a technical analysis I'll write it out
for you, but in this case it's more efficient.
To dispel the idea that 64-bit uses more ram, it uses a little bit
more, but not permanently, it will use more but it also is more
efficient with the ram. I also can explain why.
> Just leave this question alone.
It's a valid question, but I somewhat agree. Things get rehashed. I
also like human interaction when it comes to explaining why something
works and to answer questions. I prefer to use man pages, but I don't
mind writing out personal responses based on the knowledge I've gained
> Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
> Linux User
> #450462 http://counter.li.org.
> Key ID = 3951B48D
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
More information about the ubuntu-users