Search Results

Search found 19878 results on 796 pages for 'bit pirate'.

Page 5/796 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • DualBoot 32Win & 64Mac from Live USB +Persistance

    - by josephsmendoza
    So I have a 32 bit Live USB with persistance that I use to write code, cause that's just how I roll. I can boot it onto my school computers(32 bit Win) no problem, but obviously not my Mac (2007 iMac, 64 Bit). Currently I use VMWare Fusion 6 Pro and a Plop Linux image to use the usb at home, but I can only get 900mb of ram for my VM. I was hoping to make a Live USB that can boot 32 bit and 64 bit for mac, with a shared persistance file, this way I can use my computer's full 2GB. Also, I'm not allowed edit any part of this Mac. Do Not reply telling me it's impossible. Please only solutions. Thank you, and have a unicorntastic day!

    Read the article

  • PHP: Combine Two 16-bit Integers into a 32-bit integer

    - by Goro
    Hello, I am trying to combine two integers in my application. By combine I mean stick one byte stream at the end of the other, not concatenate the strings. The two integers are passed from hardware that can't pass a 32 bit value directly, but passes two consecutive 16-bit values separately. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Can I install 64-bit OS on my Dell Inspiron 1545 laptop?

    - by Dell user
    My Dell Inspiron 1545 laptop features the Intel Pentium Dual Core T4200 processor. When I bought it, it came preinstalled with Windows Vista Home Basic, 32-bit. I'm considering upgrading it to Windows 7 Home Premium, but I don't know whether I should order the 64-bit or 32-bit version. The information I found on the web has been confusing. Does anyone know if my laptop supports 64-bit OS?

    Read the article

  • SCCM Report to identify machines with 64-bit capable hardware

    - by GAThrawn
    Currently looking at deployment options for Windows 7. One of the questions we're looking into is 32 bit vs 63 bit. I'm trying to run a SCCM report against our estate to identify which machines are 64-bit capable (whether or not they're currently running a 64-bit OS). There seem to be a few resources out on the net for this (here, here and here) but none of them seem to work right on machines running 32-bit Windows XP. 32-bit XP machines seem to always report that they're running on 32-bit hardware. The query I'm currently running is: select sys.netbios_name0, sys.Operating_System_Name_and0 as OperatingSystem, case when pr.addresswidth0=64 then '64bit OS' when pr.addresswidth0=32 then '32bit OS' end as [Operating System Type], case when pr.DataWidth0=64 then '64bit Processor' when pr.DataWidth0=32 then '32bit Processor' end as [Processor Type], case when pr.addresswidth0=32 and pr.DataWidth0=64 then 'YES' end as [32-bit OS on x64 processor] from v_r_system sys join v_gs_processor pr on sys.resourceid=pr.resourceid I've also tried this, which reports all "Windows XP Professional" systems are on "X86-based PC", not x64 based even though a number of them definitely are: select OS.Caption0, CS.SystemType0, Count(*) from dbo.v_GS_COMPUTER_SYSTEM CS Left Outer Join dbo.v_GS_OPERATING_SYSTEM OS on CS.ResourceID = OS.ResourceId Group by OS.Caption0, CS.SystemType0 Order by OS.Caption0, CS.SystemType0 For instance we have a set of Dell Latitude E4200 laptops. Some of these are running 32-bit Windows XP SP3, some of them are running 32-bit Windows 7, some are running 64-bit Windows 7. All the laptops are identical, having come from the same order. Out of these the Windows 7 (32 and 64-bit) report that the hardware is 64-bit capable, and the Windows XP machines report that they're only 32-bit capable. Does anyone know if there's another value I can query to get the hardware's capabilities correctly on XP, or is there a hotfix that will get it reporting the correct info?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 on a 64-bit computer

    - by GetFree
    I read on Wikipedia that Windows 7 on a 64-bit PC needs twice as much RAM as on a 32-bit PC. I understand why is that: every number stored in memory takes 8 bytes rather than just 4. That, in simple terms, means that your amount of RAM is reduced to half when you use Windows 7 on a 64-bit computer. Now, I have a Intel Core 2 Duo Laptop with Windows Vista right now (2 GB of RAM). My question is: Since Core 2 is a 64-bit architecture, if I upgrade to Windows 7 will my laptop be working as if it had just 1 GB of RAM? Or... to say it in other words: Having a 64-bit PC with Windows 7 do you need twice as much RAM as you need on a 32-bit PC to have the same performance? If I am right, then I'd say it's a terrible business to have a 64-bit computer and Windows 7 on it (I hope I am mistaken, though). Follow-up: After some answers, I'm realizing it's not the same thing to have a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit PC than a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit PC. Apparently, the problem of Windows 7 requiring twice as much RAM on 64-bit architectures is when you have both the OS and PC supporting 64 bits. I'd like new answers to address this issue. Also, is it possible to have more that 4 GB of RAM on a 64-bit PC using a 32-bit version of Windows?

    Read the article

  • Windows 7 on a 64-bit computer

    - by GetFree
    I read on Wikipedia that Windows 7 on a 64-bit PC needs twice as much RAM as on a 32-bit PC. I understand why is that: every number stored in memory takes 8 bytes rather than just 4. That, in simple terms, means that your amount of RAM is reduced to half when you use Windows 7 on a 64-bit computer. Now, I have a Intel Core 2 Duo Laptop with Windows Vista right now (2 GB of RAM). My question is: Since Core 2 is a 64-bit architecture, if I upgrade to Windows 7 will my laptop be working as if it had just 1 GB of RAM? Or... to say it in other words: Having a 64-bit PC with Windows 7 do you need twice as much RAM as you need on a 32-bit PC to have the same performance? If I am right, then I'd say it's a terrible business to have a 64-bit computer and Windows 7 on it (I hope I am mistaken, though). Follow-up: After some answers, I'm realizing it's not the same thing to have a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit PC than a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit PC. Apparently, the problem of Windows 7 requiring twice as much RAM on 64-bit architectures is when you have both the OS and PC supporting 64 bits. I'd like new answers to address this issue. Also, is it possible to have more that 4 GB of RAM on a 64-bit PC using a 32-bit version of Windows?

    Read the article

  • Do I need more RAM for programming if I switch to a 64 Bit OS?

    - by Buttercup
    Hi, Given that today (for performance reasons?) variables are usually aligned to the "bit-width" (I wanted to use "word-width" here, but on x86 a "word" is still 16 bits right?) of the processor, would switching from a 32 bit OS to its 64 bit version double the RAM usage? Would this then in turn mean that to do the same work a 32 bit OS can do with 4 GB RAM (well, the 3.x GB actually...) with a 64 bit OS I would need 8 GB of RAM for programming? Please note that I'm only talking about everyday x86 computers here.

    Read the article

  • Examples of limitations in IT due to different bit length by design

    - by Alaudo
    I am teaching the course "Introduction in Programming" for the first-year students and would like to find interesting examples where the datatype size in bits, chosen by design, led to certain known restrictions or important values. Here are some examples: Due to the fact that the Bell teleprinter used 7-bit-code (later accepted as ASCII) until now have we often to encode attachments in electronic messages to contain only 7 bit data. Classical limitation of 32-bit address space leads to the 4Gb maximal RAM size available for 32-bit systems and 4Gb maximal file size in FAT32. Do you know some other interesting examples how the choice of the data type (and especially its binary length) influenced the modern IT world. Added after some discussion in comments: I am not going to teach how to overcome limitations. I just want them to know that 1 byte can hold the values from -127..0..+127 o 0..255, 2 bytes cover the range 0..65535 etc by proving examples they know from other sources, like the above-mentioned base64 encoding etc. We are just learning the basic datatypes and I am trying to find a good reference for "how large" these types are.

    Read the article

  • Fastest bit-blit in C# ?

    - by AttackingHobo
    I know there is Unity, and XNA that both use C#, but I am don't know what else I could use. The reason I say C# is that the syntax and style is similar to AS3, which I am familiar with, and I want to choose the correct framework to start learning with. What should I use to be able to do the most possible bit-blit(direct pixel copy) objects per frame. EDIT: I should not need to add this, but I am looking for the most possible amount of objects per frame because I am making a few Bullet-Hell SHMUPS. I need thousands and thousands of bullets, particles, and hundreds of enemies on the screen at once. I am looking for a solution to do as many bit-blit operations per frame, I am not looking for a general purpose engine. EDIT2: I want bit-blitting because I do not want to exclude people who have lower end video cards but a fast processor from playing my games.

    Read the article

  • apt-get 32 bit package on amd64 Ubuntu installation

    - by mario
    I was trying to get a game working. But I have Lucid Lynx on amd64 running while the game binary was 32 bit (no 64 bit version available and nobody was in the mood for recompiling). It lacked libfsml-windows1.5 to run, and apt-getting it failed. So I have to manually download the i386 packages and force install them. (No, not part of ia32libs.) Now I'm wondering if there is an automated way to have x86 packages downloaded at least on a 64-bit installation. apt-get -o apt::architecture=i386 did not work. (If you switch the architecture mode it doesn't find the package or assumes missing dependencies for existing packages all around.) Is there another tool to automate that? Possibly one which downloads the i386 packages and relocates contained libraries into /usr/lib32/ implicitely?

    Read the article

  • installing ubuntu 13.04 along side window 7 64 bit

    - by Shikhar Subedi
    I have a 64 bit computer with windows OS. Here are my specifications: core i3 processor 4 gb ram nvdia ge210 hard disk with 680 gb memory In my windows installation I have C: drive with 104 gb, D: drive with 246gb and E: drive with 246gb memory. My dvd rom is in f: drive. I want to install ubuntu 13.04 64 bit along side windows 7. So i burned the ubuntu 64 bit iso image onto a dvd and restarted the computer. but in the choice for installations, there is no option to select installing ubuntu along side windows. There is an option to install ubuntu inside windows instead. There are other options as well. What should I do to get the option to install ubuntu along side windows. I think the problem is with the number of drives in windows. Please tell me how should I make a partition in windows 7 to install ubuntu. Thanks a lot..

    Read the article

  • Enabling 32-Bit Applications on IIS7 (also affects 32-bit oledb or odbc drivers) [Solved]

    - by Humprey Cogay, C|EH
    We just bought a new Web Server, after installing Windows 2008 R2(which is a 64bit OS and IIS7), SQL Server Standard 2008 R2 and IBM Client Access for V5R3 with its Dot Net Data Providers, I tried deploying our new project which is fully functional on an IIS6 Based Web Server, I encountered this Error The 'IBMDA400.DataSource.1' provider is not registered on the local machine. To remove the doubt that I still lack some Software Pre-Requesites or version conflicts  since I encountered some erros while installing my IBM Client Access, I created a Connection Tester which is Windows App that accepts a connection string as a parameter and verifies if that parameter is valid. After entering the Proper Conn String I tried hitting the button and the Test was Succesful. So now I trimmed my suspects to My Web App and IIS7. After Googling around I found this post by a Rakki Muthukumar(Microsoft Developer Support Engineer for ASP.NET and IIS7) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rakkimk/archive/2007/11/03/iis7-running-32-bit-and-64-bit-asp-net-versions-at-the-same-time-on-different-worker-processes.aspx So I tried scouting on IIS7's management console and found this little tweak under the Application Pool where my App is a member of. After changing this parameter to TRUE Yahoo (although I'm a Google kind of person) the Web App Works .......

    Read the article

  • Watch Favorite Classic Movies in 16-Bit Animation Glory at PixelMash Theater

    - by Asian Angel
    Are you ready for a quick bit of retro fun? Then sit back and enjoy movie favorites like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, and more in these condensed version 16-bit animated GIFs. Note: You can select your favorite movies from the list on the left side of the homepage. PixelMash Theater Homepage [via Neatorama] 7 Ways To Free Up Hard Disk Space On Windows HTG Explains: How System Restore Works in Windows HTG Explains: How Antivirus Software Works

    Read the article

  • Blank screen after GRUB (64 bit) - cannot install Ubuntu

    - by peGGi
    My laptop's specs: Lenovo IdeaPad Z570 Intel Core i5-2410M @ 2.3Ghz 6 Gb RAM DDR3 640 Gb ATAPI Hard-disk Drive @ 5,200 RPM NVIDIA GeForce G520M with Optimus switching technology Broadcom 802.11n Network Adapter REALTEK soundcard Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit I downloaded Ubuntu Studio 11.04 and burned the iso image onto two different DVDs, using two different programs (one DVD is RW, the other is just R). I verified the hash MD5sum thing. I get as far as GRUB with the 4 options (install, advanced install, disk verification, system rescue) but no matter which one I select, I get a blank screen and nothing happens. The DVD drive spins down after about 30 seconds. Also just before the GRUB screen I get a message saying Error: "Prefix" is not set. I'm not sure if that's relevant. I have tried all the options using both DVDs. Same thing happens. I have changed the graphics setting in BIOS to UMA or Optimus, but still happens either way. I've tried booting with the wireless switch turned off, same thing happens. I downloaded 'vanilla' Ubuntu 64-bit and burned onto a CD, and the same thing happens. I have downloaded Ubuntu 32-bit and I am able to boot from the live CD (interestingly the wireless card won't work, but that's maybe another issue). I have searched extensively through these forums and other sites but I can't see anything that will help me. Is there something I'm missing? I'd really appreciate help on this. The laptop is less than 2 weeks old. I was so looking forward to getting Ubuntu Studio up and running. I've gone about as far as my technical abilities will allow.

    Read the article

  • How to fix Java problem installing Matlab 2012a (64-bit) in Ubuntu 12.04 (64 bit)?

    - by Sabyasachi
    I am trying to install Matlab 2012a (64-bit) in Ubuntu 12.04LTS (64-bit). I have installed Java 7. My Java version is: sabyasachi@sabyasachi-ubuntu:~/Downloads/R2012a_UNIX$ java -version java version "1.7.0_05" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_05-b05) Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.1-b03, mixed mode I am getting the following error while installing Matlab: sabyasachi@sabyasachi-ubuntu:~/Downloads/R2012a_UNIX$ ./install Preparing installation files ... Installing ... /tmp/mathworks_18824/sys/java/jre/glnxa64/jre/bin/java: error while loading shared libraries: libjli.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Finished How can I fix this problem? When I use -v (verbose) option I am getting the following: sabyasachi@sabyasachi-ubuntu:~/Downloads/R2012a_UNIX$ sudo ./install -v Preparing installation files ... -> DVD = /home/sabyasachi/Downloads/R2012a_UNIX -> ARCH = glnxa64 -> DISPLAY = :0 -> TESTONLY = 0 -> JRE_LOC = /tmp/mathworks_26521/sys/java/jre/glnxa64/jre -> LD_LIBRARY_PATH = /tmp/mathworks_26521/bin/glnxa64 Command to run: /tmp/mathworks_26521/sys/java/jre/glnxa64/jre/bin/java -splash:"/home/sabyasachi/Downloads/R2012a_UNIX/java/splash.png" -Djava.ext.dirs=/tmp/mathworks_26521/sys/java/jre/glnxa64/jre/lib/ext:/tmp/mathworks_26521/java/jar:/tmp/mathworks_26521/java/jarext:/tmp/mathworks_26521/java/jarext/axis2/:/tmp/mathworks_26521/java/jarext/guice/:/tmp/mathworks_26521/java/jarext/webservices/ com/mathworks/professionalinstaller/Launcher -root "/home/sabyasachi/Downloads/R2012a_UNIX" -tmpdir "/tmp/mathworks_26521" Installing ... /tmp/mathworks_26521/sys/java/jre/glnxa64/jre/bin/java: error while loading shared libraries: libjli.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Finished sabyasachi@sabyasachi-ubuntu:~/Downloads/R2012a_UNIX$

    Read the article

  • How do I force Wubi to install a 32-bit version?

    - by marx
    I'm using Windows 8 (32bit) customer preview and installing WUBI Ubuntu 12,04.1. I down loaded 32 bit installer from ubuntu dot com, The wubi installer says AMD 64 xt. I had a previous 12,04 install and in the terminal typed in uname -a, it say's 64 bit. I also opened detail from the system and it read 64 bit system. My question is: how to ensure that a windows/wubi/ubuntu/installer is 32 bit or 64 bit BEFORE making a commitment to install from the wrong wubi install? After posting this I did another wubi installation. Signed into ubuntu, opened system settings, open Details: OS Type 64 Bit. Why is it doing this? I have a 32 Bit machine: Toshiba Satellite A-215 S5818 (previous Windows Vista)<--wiped clean. from an earlier installation of Ubuntu 10.10 which worked, in feb 2012 i installed Win8 Customer Preview Release (32Bit) which took over the BOOT order and 140 GB Hard Disk. I am trying patiently to install WUBI 32 BIT Ubuntu 12.04 Install, it keeps returning 64 BIT install.. Why?? I should also mention that i was successful in a dual boot install ubuntu 10.04/win8 32 bit install and upgraded to 12.04 which is fine for now, but i want a win8/wubi/ubuntu12.04 32 bit working not 64 bit breaking what i have. thank you.

    Read the article

  • Convert bit vector (array of booleans) to an integer, and integer to bit vector, in Java.

    - by dreeves
    What's the best way to unstub the following functions? // Convert a bit-vector to an integer. int bitvec2int(boolean[] b) { [CODE HERE] } // Convert an integer x to an n-element bit-vector. boolean[] int2bitvec(int x, int n) { [CODE HERE] } Or is there a better way to do that sort of thing than passing boolean arrays around? This comes up in an Android app where we need an array of 20 booleans to persist and the easiest way to do that is to write an integer or string to the key-value store. I'll post the way we (Bee and I) wrote the above as an answer. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Install Opera on 64-bit

    - by maaartinus
    I tried to follow the instructions on the opera page, but it didn't work. I was assuming the base install should be the same for 64-bit, but it doesn't look so. After executing wget -qO - http://deb.opera.com/archive.key | sudo apt-key add - successfully sudo apt-get install opera says Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Package opera is not available, but is referred to by another package. This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or is only available from another source E: Package 'opera' has no installation candidate Below on the page I see A 64 bit Linux version is available, you should get it automatically either from the repositories or from Opera I haven't tried to download it manually, since I prefer to get it from a repo. It it possible?

    Read the article

  • Install Lightscribe on 64 bit AMD Error

    - by user170573
    I am trying to install lightscribe on a 64 bit Ubuntu 12.04. I have installed the 32 bit libs and I keep getting the following message: tedsch47@Ted-Laptop:~/Downloads/Programs$ sudo dpkg --install --force architecture lightscribe-1.18.27.10-linux-2.6-intel.deb (Reading database ... 574566 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace lightscribe:i386 1.18.27.10 (using lightscribe-1.18.27.10-linux-2.6-intel.deb) ... Unpacking replacement lightscribe:i386 ... Setting up lightscribe:i386 (1.18.27.10) ... ln: failed to create symbolic link `/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5': File exists How do I fix this?

    Read the article

  • Does Windows 8 Support 16-bit Programs?

    - by Synetech
    With Vista and up, 64-bit versions of Windows no longer support 16-bit programs, but 32-bit versions can still run them. Windows 8 has changed a lot of things from even Windows 7, and there were rumors a while back that it would only be available in 64-bit[1][2] which seems not to be the case anymore. It’s no secret thet Microsoft is pushing users to migrate to 64-bit systems. Have they dropped 16-bit support from Windows 8 altogether (including 32-bit versions)?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >