[SLUG] Re:Ubuntu 64 bit install

[Paul Teasdale]

On Thursday 29 Dec 2005 14:12, Michael John Drawneek wrote:
> On Thursday 29 December 2005 10:24, Paul Teasdale wrote:
> >
> > 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???
>
You don't "need" a 64 bit version as such but you will find that in order to 
get OOo running your 64 bit PC will have a whole host of duplicated 32 bit 
supporting libraries. If nothing else at all this leads to bloat but I guess 
hard disk space is relatively cheap now. Also would a 64 bit version help it 
start up a little quicker one might ask :)

> I am running OOo with no problems at all on a 64bit suse 9.3 install,
> nothing special, it just installed and ran!
>
In my experience that's true with SUSE 10 at least and obviously 9.3 too 
judging by your comments; so no problem there for us. 

> 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  ;-).
>
I agree with your comment about XP but then I know how to install XP so don't 
have an issue with having to supply a SATA driver disk before installation; 
do it at regularly at work. Furthermore my own 64 bit PC has never had a 
sniff of Windows and that's the way it's going to stay.

I have not tried SUSE 9.3 on my machine so it may the case that it would 
correctly detect my SATA controller (and other hardware). As I said earlier 
SUSE do seem to put a lot of effort into getting hardware to work.

I won't get into a discussion about Linux distributions (quality of or 
whatever) because, apart from starting a SLUG distro flame war, it'll 
convince another bunch people currently investigating Linux to stay with 
Windows. Choose the distro you feel most comfortable with folks ;)

Regards,

Paul.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/scarborough/attachments/20051229/32f51e02/attachment.bin