32 or 64??
holtzm at cox.net
Sun Jan 31 06:33:05 UTC 2010
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 05:56:18PM -0500, anubis wrote:
> On 01/30/2010 05:38 PM, RobertHoltzman wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 01:56:10PM -0500, anubis wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 13:44 -0500, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
> >>>> I'll be installing on an HP G71-340US with 4GB RAM. It came with
> >>>> 64-bit Windows 7 installed.
> >>> So running a 32-bit OS, you won't be able to use all those 4GB, but a
> >>> bit less (say 3,5GB).
> >>> But again, keep in mind applications running in 64-bit mode uses more
> >>> memory, so you won't gain a lot here.
> >>> If you want to, install a 64-bit system, if you want to be absolutly
> >>> on the safe side go for a 32-bit OS.
> >>> Most likely you won't regret any of those choices.
> >>> - Clemens
> >> Please stop with this FUD.
> >> If you have a 64bit machine with more than 3+ GB of ram install and use
> >> the 64bit OS. Don't listen to any of this fear, uncertainty and
> >> disinformation in this thread. One would think this issue has been long
> >> dead and solved, but here we are again.
> > Excuse me but could you point out what about the quoted message is FUD?
> The part about being "safe" by avoiding 64bit. Sounds like evoking fear.
> You sound certain, but uninformed, as nothing is unsafe about running
> 64bit. So,that covers the fear,uncertainty, and disinformation.
It may sound that way to you but not to others.
> Basically, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Let's see....I asked a question and suddenly I don't know what I'm
talking about. You sure you're not related to Karl?
GPG key ID = 8D549279
If you think you're getting free lunch
check the price of the beer.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ubuntu-users