It seems however that getting chessbase 9 to work with linux 64 bit isn't easy / possible.
So now, I wonder about installing ubuntu 64 bit on a flash drive and using shredder 12 64 bit as that comes with a linux GUI.
Is the 64 bit version of shredder linux much stronger than the 32 bit of shredder linux? (and I assume shredder 12 windows and shredder 12 linux are equally strong?)
Just test it, if it runs well with Wine, it's easy to install.
Shredder Linux is a solid but relatively minimalistic GUI, Shredder 64 bit should be as strong as 32 bit.
Btw., if you wait 2 days, you can download the latest Ubuntu version with a better Wine integration.
Also, I was a bit lost on the part about a server. Do I still need to do all that if I am working off a laptop rather than a network?
Or does this lack of understanding simply show I should stick with windows?
>> Or does this lack of understanding simply show I should stick with windows?
Maybe you should try Ubuntu. Well, I haven't been using a long time either. Maybe 3 to 4 months. That was after Felix's never-give up persuasion. I tried it and I like it a lot. In fact, the only reason I am still using Windows is because of other applications like Visual Studio.
3 Rybka 3 w32 2CPU 3137
11 Deep Shredder 12 x64 2CPU 3047
> Btw., if you wait 2 days, you can download the latest version with a better Wine integration.
It better Be :)
Maybe it's something simple like volume set to 0 for your system, you could check in the audio settings you can access via the little icon in the main bar.
So Ubuntu will have to wait until I get a PC in the future with a different graphics card (that'll be a few years as my PC isn't that old)
> Ah, Ubuntu: the instability of Debian unstable but without the updates :-)
It looks stable o me GCP. Maybe it's because I haven't used it intensively. What do you use?
Ubuntu consists of taking the unstable packages from Debian and then providing no upgrades (just security updates) for them. So often many packages have serious bugs but you can't upgrade them. The easy installation makes it good for starting people but I doubt long term users will be happy with it.
> but I doubt long term users will be happy with it.
Felix is happy with it :-D
/* Steinar */
- Debian developer and user
It's not that different from Debian, the main advantages are in the usability area.
>However, in my experience gnome was a bit more "solid"
KDE went through a major change when going from 3.5 to 4.0, and broke many things. I think only in 4.3.x things are starting to get settled again.
3.5.x is rock solid if you can live with slightly older versions.
>I think a lot of little things are simply more user friendly in Ubuntu.
Particularly for the installation, this is true.
>My brother used it for quite some time before I told him about Ubuntu :-)
At some point he will run into a serious bug and not want to wait 6 months to (maybe!) get a fix :)
>> I think a lot of little things are simply more user friendly in Ubuntu.
> Particularly for the installation, this is true.
The last time I checked (9.something), Ubuntu's installation order was braindead:
1) Render the system unbootable by overwriting the MBR
2) Install the OS, hoping nothing goes wrong.
It's like setting a pointer to a random location, then calling malloc and hoping it returns the same address...
/* Steinar */
> Err? The GRUB installation is pretty late in the process...
They must've changed it. IIRC it was right after partitioning.
But still, "pretty late" isn't late enough unless it's the last thing you do. Just today, Chakra's installer hung on me trying to create a user... (the bootloader would've been the second-to-last step, before "Configure system").
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill