Re: -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- From: Darren Salt <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:25:23 +0000
I demand that * may or may not have written...
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:05:11 +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
I demand that * may or may not have written...
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:37:26 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
In your world, 32-bit may be a bygone era. In the real world, the oneHey, wake up! It's 2008, not 1996.
/most/ of us live in, there are far more 32-bit machines in use than
64-bit. And that's likely to be that way for a long, long time to come.
The op has a 64 bit machine. THERE ARE NO NEW 32 BIT MACHINES. Since
2004 i386 has come to an end. Think about it and you'll get the point.
I see that you're not actually disagreeing... :-)
I do not disagree at all. 32 bit is dead. RIP.
32-bit x86 in commodity hardware, yes. And such hardware was certainly still
available as new last year - I saw some and, indeed, have one item of said
hardware; and before you ask, no, it doesn't matter that it's 32-bit :-)
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| Let's keep the pound sterling
My karma ran over my dogma.
.
- References:
- -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- From: darkblueB
- Re: -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- From: Thomas Richter
- Re: -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- From: Sinister Midget
- Re: -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- From: Darren Salt
- -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- Prev by Date: Re: Recommendation for storage system hardware (mainboard, controllers)
- Next by Date: Re: largest amount of RAM cache (non ECC or ECC)
- Previous by thread: Re: -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- Next by thread: Re: -64bit Ubuntu or 32bit?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|