[SLUG] Re:Ubuntu 64 bit install

[Michael John Drawneek]

On Thursday 29 December 2005 10:24, Paul Teasdale wrote:
> On Thursday 29 Dec 2005 00:12, Michael John Drawneek wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 December 2005 20:56, Paul Teasdale wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 28 Dec 2005 18:53, john baldwin wrote:
> > > > 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????
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I'm having no problems with OOo on a 64 bit OS other than OOo is actually
> running as 32 bit (from a 32 bit chroot in my case). AFAIK, and please
> correct me if I'm wrong, OOo does not yet exist as a pure 64 bit build
> although looking at various forums it is being worked on.
>
> I do agree that I used a bad word that word being unavailable. It's not
> unavailable so to speak but is not truly 64 bit compatible either which is
> what I was trying to point out.

Question, why would you "need" a 64bit version???

I am running OOo with no problems at all on a 64bit suse 9.3 install, nothing 
special, it just installed and ran!

Also if you remembered history and dates you would not expect Xp to support 
SATA, my machine has SATA drives and again suse 9.3 (64bit) has no problems 
with them, maybe its just the quality of the distribution  ;-).

mike