I have google gears installed on our 64bit firefoxes on firefox 3.5.5 in
centos 5.4 with flash 10 - all from rpm ;)
Works very nicely..
2009/12/17 Marko Vojinovic vvma...@gmail.com
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 23:51:43 Jake Shipton wrote:
On 16/12/09 23:37, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On
James Hogarth wrote:
I have google gears installed on our 64bit firefoxes on firefox 3.5.5 in
centos 5.4 with flash 10 - all from rpm ;)
Works very nicely..
Google is focusing on HTML5 these days anyway. They're maintaining
Gears for those sites who currently utilize it but I'd
Just after getting storage into the webapp kinda funny really
When we started working with the tech HTML5 storage wasn't really viable...
It's an internal only app though so as long as I can get gears on 64bit
firefox 3.5 and safari on mac it's fine till the relevant code is tested
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of
RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running
x86_64 on that machine
Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of
RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running
so to be honest...what really spawned this... I put all my VMs on an NFS
share. I've got an F11 VM I run...but on my x86_64 host - starting the
F11 VM (its an i386 VM) fails to start. If I run F11 x86_64 it works
fine. I' really just trying to simplify things and standards on one type
of
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of
RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running
x86_64 on that machine
Scot P. Floess wrote:
Its a Dell Pentium D - basically x86_64 but does not support hardware
virtualization. Its a Dell Poweredge SC430 if that helps???
I believe those were a pair of the P4 Prescott chips in a single
package, and pretty much what I said, 64bit works, but there's little
Ah good point... Wasn't thinking in those terms... Well clearly wasn't
thinking at all ;)
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
boxes are all i386. As
Hey thats an interesting bit of trivia - thanks :) Large memory - bah -
this silly machine maxes out at 4 GB...
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, John R Pierce wrote:
Scot P. Floess wrote:
Its a Dell Pentium D - basically x86_64 but does not support hardware
virtualization. Its a Dell Poweredge SC430
At Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:53:01 -0500 (EST) CentOS mailing list
centos@centos.org wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 14:53 -0500, Scot P. Floess wrote:
is there any advantage to my running
x86_64 on that machine instead of i386...
A better question might be, do you have any particular reason not to run
x86_64 on that machine?
All of my machines and the machines that I look after are
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Scot P. Floess sflo...@nc.rr.com wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of
RAM (currently only
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Longer answer: every single move, down at the machine/assembly level, can
move twice as many bits as on a 32-bit system. That will show up as a very
serious speed increase in your software.
actually, the pentiums have had a 64bit physical memory bus since the
first
On 16/12/09 19:53, Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of
RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:52:05 Jake Shipton wrote:
On 16/12/09 19:53, Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable...
Personally, if you had asked this 3 years ago, I'd have said Go i686
due to compatibility.
But now-a-days with up-to-date
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 23:37 +, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Any machine I have that can run in x86_64, I normally install a
x86_64
OS, and recently,
I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
Skype?
Actually, my contribution to your list would be acroread. The free
pdf readers
On 16/12/09 23:37, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:52:05 Jake Shipton wrote:
On 16/12/09 19:53, Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable...
Personally, if you had asked this 3 years ago, I'd have said Go i686
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Frank Cox thea...@sasktel.net wrote:
I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
Skype?
Actually, my contribution to your list would be acroread. The free
pdf readers still aren't up to the task in some cases, sadly.
Interesting that it's the
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 23:51:43 Jake Shipton wrote:
On 16/12/09 23:37, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:52:05 Jake Shipton wrote:
Any machine I have that can run in x86_64, I normally install a x86_64
OS, and recently,
I haven't found anything I need that is
20 matches
Mail list logo
