Because 64 is something like twice as much as 32.
Also, I may be a tad stubborn. So don't bother trying to convince me I
wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Firefox compiled for
64-bit and FF compiled for 32-bit.
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Barrett
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:41 AM
To: Eugene Unix and Gnu/Linux User Group
Subject: Re: [Eug-lug] Would you guys mind padding this a little
bit?
So.... I think the question is, "why use the 64-bit version?"
On 2/22/07, Jason LaPier <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> Jason LaPier wrote:
>
> > While we're at it, where's the one for Flash support
on AMD64 (so I
> > don't have to have two versions of Firefox
installed)?
>
> How often does your 'Fox exceed 2 gigabytes?
>
> --
> Bob Miller K<bob>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Huh? You lost me.
My complaint is based on the fact that I use a 64-bit
version of
Firefox, and for the occasion that I want to use a
Flash-based site, I
have another 32-bit version of FF in another directory
(with only 32-bit
plugins installed). So when I want to do Flash, I have
to quit one FF
and load the other. I know, big deal right? It was kind
of a PITA to set
up, and frankly it's just one of those things that I
dream someday might
Just Work (TM).
- Jason L.
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
