[SLUG] Re:Ubuntu 64 bit install

[Michael John Drawneek]

On Wednesday 28 December 2005 20:56, Paul Teasdale wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 Dec 2005 18:53, john baldwin wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Firstly thankyou for your response. I was not sure whether you had
> subscribed to the list or not before sending my reply but sent it to the
> list regardless. I'm glad you got my reply.
>
> > my friendly engineer called round and it took him about 40 minutes to
> > find the required driver on the jetway disk supplied, and it crashed his
> > laptop 3 times.afterwards  he commented that 'interwebsystems of 
> > chester' could have included in the package the correct drivers on a
> > floppy and saved him a lot of work.
>
> I agree that the supplier of your system supplier could have provided a
> SATA driver disk to make things easier. However I'm sure you'll agree that
> Jetway could make things easier too. I hate it when you buy a motherboard
> and it comes with a disk containing 100's of different drivers and it's not
> too obvious which exact ones you need for your particular motherboard.
>
> > he says that it will be some time before 64 bit gets into
> > general use and there are compatible programmes to be used.
>
> I use Debian as my preferred Linux distribution and out of almost 9000
> different packages there are only a handful that do not work under a 64 bit
> system for whatever reason so I slightly disagree with this comment.
>
> I only slightly disagree because some of the package that are unavailable
> appear to be the most used most notably OpenOffice.org

what probs are you having with OOo and 64 bit O/s????

> and many of the web 
> browser plugins like flash. Also Debian isn't too easy to install
> (depending on your skills obviously) but is very easy to use after
> installation including seemless package management using the apt system.
>
> > he dual booted
> > my sata drive so i can install ubuntu if i want later.he commented that
> > sata/raid facilities are pretty advanced for a user like me and i'm
> > unlikely to use my bells and whistles if i'm not a gamer or doing
> > advanced work with graphics,
>
> They can be advanced but at the end of the day you need a hard disk. If
> that hard disk has an SATA interface then you need to be able to recognise
> the controller in order to recognise the hard drive and this isn't advanced
> but essential. SATA is just relatively new when compared to IDE/SCSI and
> therefore older operatings systems (including both Linux and XP) don't have
> the necessary drivers built-in as standard.
>
> > so now i've got XP on  and once it settles i'll have a
> > play about with linux,
>
> Well I'm glad you have got yourself sorted for the moment. I do hope you
> try Linux again soon. If you can make it why not try to come to one of our
> meetings. If I know you are coming I will be more that happy to bring my 64
> bit system along for you to have a "play" with. How about the February
> meeting?
>
> > the fact that there are so many linux systems
> > available with mixed results trying to install them mitigates against
> > them unless you have computer skills in abundance-again thanks for the
> > many interesting responses
>
> I totally agree that the number of Linux distros available turns potential
> Linux users off (in my opinion of course). Linux veterans call it choice
> and argue that is a good thing (and it is in lots of respects) but for
> people who just want to install and use Linux it confuses them.
>
> As for the install process I find Windows XP no easier to install than most
> of the mainstream Linux distros. No disrespect but I think what people tend
> to forget when they complain about Linux installs is that they never
> actually installed Windows themselves but bought it pre-installed with
> their PC.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul.