Post Your System
-
Deleted User last edited by
I installed Ubuntu 14.04 and I have two problems:
-
I can't upgrade to latest version 14.10
-
I can't access Windows' partition.
-
-
linuxmint7 last edited by
I installed Ubuntu 14.04 and I have two problems:
I can't upgrade to latest version 14.10
I can't access Windows' partition.-
Stay with 14.04 as this is a LTS (Long Term Support) release, and will receive updates till 2017. Whereas 14.10 is a short term support release, and will only receive support for 9 months.
-
Ways to access your Windows partition will depend on which desktop manager you are using.
But in Ubuntu you usually need to enter your Ubuntu administrators password to gain access once you have found your way to it.
-
-
Deleted User last edited by
Stay with 14.04 as this is a LTS (Long Term Support) release, and will receive updates till 2017. Whereas 14.10 is a short term support release, and will only receive support for 9 months.
But at that time Ubuntu will be updated to a new version. I want to upgrade because Unity is better in it.
Ways to access your Windows partition will depend on which desktop manager you are using.
But in Ubuntu you usually need to enter your Ubuntu administrators password to gain access once you have found your way to it.Can you help me with that?
-
Deleted User last edited by
I found a way to access Windows files: boot Windows and reboot it, then boot Ubuntu.
-
-
ruario last edited by
Nope, no real difference, unless you have more than 6GB of RAM and your OS and software are 64bit optimised.
What OS are you talking about? Because running 64-Bit Linux starts making sense from around the 892MB mark or better, despite what you may have heard previously. Here is a quote from Linus Torvalds:
<blockquote>And for the kernel, the bigger virtual address space really is a huge deal. HIGHMEM accesses really are very slow. You don't see that in user space, but I really have seen 25% performance differences between non-highmem builds and CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G enabled for things that try to put a lot of data in highmem (and the 64G one is even more expensive). And that was just with 2GB of RAM.</blockquote>
In another thread, a different kernel contributor, Hans Peter Anvin, clarifies the RAM limit when compiling without HIGHMEM.
<blockquote>That cutoff is ~892 MB for a stock 32-bit kernel.</blockquote>
In the same thread he goes on to specifically suggest using a 64 bit kernel on anything with more than 1GB of RAM.
<blockquote>Since 32 bits means that any machine with 1 GB more means HIGHMEM, the number of non-embedded machines that should run 32-bit kernels today is functionally the null set. </blockquote>
In summary, you should switch to 64-bit specifically to <em>improve</em> the performance of your 1GB machine, at least on Linux.
-
-
ruario last edited by
OK, well I don't know much about Windows these days, so free to ignore me if you like.
Though I would still be very surprised if you need 6Gb before you should consider 64-Bit Windows. -
linuxmint7 last edited by
Well through experience, 4GB is usable in 64bit Windows, but 6GB is a much better experience.
I have had the displeasure (when repairing a customers machine) of using a 64bit version of Windows 7 with 2GB of RAM. Not a good experience in the slightest, took ages to boot to the desktop, as long again to load most programs, and was so slow in general, timing it via a calendar would be more fitting than a stopwatch.
Linux on the other hand, I do find it much more efficient in low memory situations, and a much better experience overall, Which is pretty much one of the main reasons I use it as my main operating system. One of the other main reasons I use it, is the fact that it can be installed on an external drive, SD card, memory stick etc, which is how I use it most of the time. Oh, and it also stays out of the way and lets you get on and get things done. Unlike Windows.
-
Deleted User last edited by
How to install tar.gz program?
Never mind, I tried to install OpenOffice and gdebi acussed the file of not secure.
-
A Former User last edited by
I have had the displeasure (when repairing a customers machine) of using a 64bit version of Windows 7 with 2GB of RAM. Not a good experience in the slightest, took ages to boot to the desktop, as long again to load most programs, and was so slow in general, timing it via a calendar would be more fitting than a stopwatch.
Windows 8.1 64-bit runs just fine on 2 GB, even though this value is in the "system requirements" Microsoft lists for the 64-bit version, it only uses about 800~900 MB by itself.
I'd blame the start-up time and slowness when loading on third-party applications starting with the system, or something else, or other hardware component. Anyway, I think we should take the latest version to discuss properly, Windows 8 introduced Fast Boot and they made it lighter so that more tablet-like PCs could handle it well I'm sure talking about Windows 7 is not a good idea anymore.The Windows 8.x 32-bit version system requirements says 1 GB, but it's a really bad idea to have any PC on 1 GB... It doesn't run well compared to the 64-bit version on 2 GB... I'd rather make this cheap RAM upgrade and go with the 64-bit version if the rest of the system isn't ancient also.
-
A Former User last edited by
Have you got any upgrades?
Last quarter I have finally put up with the times and built a PC. :'D
i3 4150
4 GB Corsair Vegeance RAM
XFX Radeon R9 280I can game again!
-
Deleted User last edited by
Now I came back to the original system (Windows 7 Home Premium), I will be able to get Windows 10!
-
klingoncowboy4 last edited by
Currently posting from my Android phone... also have a Fedora system... can get into specifics if you'd like...
-
Deleted User last edited by
Now I have a new notebook.
SAMSUNG ATIVBOOK
Intel core i5 with Intel HD Grafics 4000 (I guess)
8 GB of RAM
Windows 8.1 -
-
-
Deleted User last edited by
Why? I am just asking because I was getting some errors in my USB installation.
-
gustavwiz last edited by
Several packages that you can install with apt-get are more up to date, for example blender. There are also repositories that aren't included in 14.04, for example you can only in 15.04 install ffmpeg by default. 15.04 use systemd when booting, which is faster and more modern. Unity has several small improvements, you also have an "open in terminal" option in Nautilus (the file manager), which will open a terminal and cd to the directory you are in in Nautilus (very smart).
-
Deleted User last edited by
...for example you can only in 15.04 install ffmpeg by default...
I have to add a ppa to install that.
i got your points but I will stick to LTS.
