32 or 64??
th1bill at sbcglobal.net
Sun Jan 31 21:32:04 UTC 2010
On Sun, 2010-01-31 at 06:52 +0000, ubuntu-users-request at lists.ubuntu.com
> Re: 32 or 64??
I'm certain that nobody will care since I've previously been call a liar
about download speeds on DSL in excess of 150 kb but I'll put it in
there anyway. For those of you that are not a long time into Ubuntu,
even with my reputation besmirched I am on a loco team and only use
Windoze XP inside VirtualBox to maintain one web site that is hosted by
Intuit Homestead. I run my main and my backup computers, exclusively on
Ubuntu. On just a couple of folks advise I have been slow to swap over
to the 64bit version.
One concern has certainly been the Flash concerns and that is balanced
against the unverified stories that I will get better service and usage
of my dual core AMD with the 64 bit version. On the advise of team
members, last night I downloaded Lucid Alpha 2 and burnt the image to
disk. Today I am just about over the flu and cranked my dual core up
with the disk and was pleasantly surprised. The system tested very
good. Since I recently backed up my spare machine I will, some time
this week, install the 64 bit Lucid on this single core 64 bit machine
for further evaluation and familiarization.
Having been building and working with computers since the Vic 20 I am
going to issue a caution to the new users. Do not download an Alpha or
a Beta version Operating System to install on your primary machine. New
OSs are not stable until about 3 to six months after their release and
that release will not have alpha or beta after it's name.
As for the Flash problem... I see here that someone knows the work
around and I will begin to dig into that as needed. Since I know there
are other options for Linux systems in the 32 bit configuration I have
absolutely no doubt that the tens of thousands of people around the
world have an element of developers that have attacked this problem and
have ready made, free, solutions.
More information about the ubuntu-users