I am just about to give up on Ubuntu AMD 64

[Computer Hobbyist]

I am just about to surrender and buy a Windows disk. I have spent the weekend simply getting Firefox to work. It seems you have to install Firefox32, and all the wonderful helper apps because nobody ever thought AMD 64 bit processing was going to take off, at least nobody working for the helper apps (FlashPlayer, Java, Adobe etc) Firefox uses. All of that has been accomplished, but for the life of me I can't get my printer to work. No matter what I try. Oh, its connected. readily identified by the printer manager. It just isn't printing. A lot of people at the Ubuntu forums report the problem, but others claim there are no problems. A lot of them say the problems started with a recent upgrade of cups.

I was just going to wax philosophic about the problem, but if I knew I would take care of it. I don't and I am about to give up on Ubuntu. I have been a supporter of Linux for years, but this is too much. You would think that by this time Linux should do some things very well, printing would be one of them, and it would be flawless.

Is there a Linux distro out there that has AMD64 under control?

[faulkner132]

Use the 32 bit version. As with Windows, the OS may operate in 64-bit, but virtually no applications support it with any stability.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I wrote a couple of posts years ago telling people not to get too excited about AMD's 64 bit architecture. Without appropriate software the machine won't run any faster than a comparable 32 bit machine. That was several years ago. You would think that by this time we would have seen some real effort by the application writers. Except for the gamers nobody seems to have paid much attention.

The printing issue is a problem.

Funny my new computer replaces an old 900 mhz celeron with 512 Meg of ram. The old machine was running the 32 bit version of ubuntu. It was running it flawlessly and doing everything I wanted it to do. oh, well, maybe I can fire it up.

It isn't as though I have any complaints about the athlon 64 and the rest of the hardware. It is running flawlessly. The AMD 64 version of Ubuntu is just a pain. I don't mind a pain, but it is a pain in a special way. Because Ubuntu doesn't give you a root user there are some tools (notably the cups administrative tools) that just can't be used, at least not by me, yet. Sudo is ok for most uses, but sometimes . . . .

[Computer Hobbyist]

I have been able to install firefox and its 32 bit helpr apps, but the system seems very strange. Not nearly as solid as I am used to with Ubuntu. It is likely to do odd things. Any recommendations for a more stable Linux desktop for an Amd 64 machine?

[Redo40]

I'm not an Ubuntu user, though I tried it for a very short time. You may already know about this and still can't get what you want done, but just in case you don't.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Ro...6e8690c66e338c

[faulkner132]

I think 64-bit support is lagging for all OS's across the board.
Are you dead-set on using 64-bit? The 32-bit version of Ubuntu 6.06 is rock-solid.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I have deep sixed the 64 bit version of ubuntu. It was just too unstable with 32 bit apps shoehorned in. I have installed Windows 2000. It runs everything.

I have the 32 bit version of ubuntu on my old machine. It is taking on a server role. Sad, but I used Linux on my personal desktop for years. Probably longer than just about anybody on this board. I find myself wanting to install familiar applications. Fortunately gimp and openoffice are available for windows. Gimp is just about as good as Photoshop. Open Office is superior to MS Office.

[Alaron]

Was there a specific reason you wanted to use the 64bit version?

Running the 32bit version on a 64bit CPU works just fine, and Ubuntu is solid as a rock.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I wanted to see if it would work. There is no point in having a 64 bit processor with all that potential just to have it throttled back to half speed. Apparently the application makers haven't caught up with the new technology. I guess they are waiting to see if it is going to catch on. This is what, year 3 or 4. My old computer is running ubuntu. It is rock solid. I just hooked it back up to my home network. It makes a wonderful file server.

I have just watched an ad that talks about quad core processing. Technology just keeps moving along.

[glc]

No, that doesn't throttle it back to half speed! Windows 2000 is only a 32 bit OS. Most people with 64 bit processors are only running 32 bit Windows or alternatives.

[Computer Hobbyist]

You are right, of course, but I have had it with the cups problems as well. I need to be able to print. I installed Windows 2000 sp4.

My wife's old machine died last month. The victim of a coca cola spill. I put XP on the new one so I had a copy of Windows 2000 not doing anything. With Windows 2000 sp4 installed I was able to install all of the Asus and NVidia drivers as well as the Canon printer driver. Everything works.

Every thing is backed up. Maybe this weekend I will reformat part of the hard drive to dual boot. On the other hand I have been eyeing hardware to create a wireless network. My old Celeron would go great in my workshop if I don't have to run a lot of wire. I could log on to PC Mech down there..... Hummm.....

I guess I was just disappointed that Linux hasn't made any greater progress in securing manufacturer support. It might not have a significant desktop market share in America, but in the rest of the world it is doing pretty well.

Anyway messing around with computers is my hobby. So I can't complain too much.

[glc]

I know this is the AltOS forum, but I will say this about Win2K - it's a very stable, mature OS with quite reasonable minimum system requirements and if it does what you need, there's no reason whatsoever to use anything else. I use it on this main desktop and my main laptop - I have another laptop that dual boots it and Win98, and my test bench drive has 2K. I do have a Kubuntu box here but don't do much with it. I can relate to Linux printing issues - it took me 2 hours and a lot of Googling to get my Kubuntu box to print to my shared Windows Epson C86 printer. I've had less hassles getting a Mac to print to shared Windows printers. There is just no logical reason for printer installs to be so difficult, it's not like a C86 is an oddball printer.

[faulkner132]

Originally Posted by glc I can relate to Linux printing issues - it took me 2 hours and a lot of Googling to get my Kubuntu box to print to my shared Windows Epson C86 printer. I've had less hassles getting a Mac to print to shared Windows printers. There is just no logical reason for printer installs to be so difficult, it's not like a C86 is an oddball printer.

Again, if you don't want to deal with issues like this (and I can understand if you don't), this is why you purchase a commercial OS.

Linux never will be on the same level as MS or Mac in terms of drivers or sheer number of available programs because there is no commercial backing for it. Yes, I know there are companies which make money doing specialized development and deployments, etc. on Linux OS', but they are a drop in the bucket compared to an MS.

Ubuntu suits my home needs of internet/web development/music/movies/etc. perfectly and doesn't cost a dime, so frankly Windows offers me nothing at home. Heck, with the Linux Terminal Server client, I can connect to my work Windows box if I ever need to use one.

Alternately, at work we use MS everything and it works great. I wouldn't have time to deal with issues like network printers or Samba configurations and this is why we pay big $$ to have MS everything.

It all boils down to how much patience and willingness to learn you have. Some people just want things to work and I certainly understand that and MS fits that bill perfectly.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I have to agree with faulkner that in many ways ubuntu is more than adequate for my home computing. I am not a gamer, and I mostly use a computer to edit photos, write, burn the occasional CD, and, above all, surf the net. I agree with glc. Because I handle a small business out of my home office and that requires me to do a lot of writing, the printing issue is very annoying. An operating system, any operating system, is about operating devices. One of the most ubiquitous devices attached to any computer is the lowly printer.

It is not like Linux hasn't evolved to do some things very, very well. The burning tools in Ubuntu are superior to several of the commercal burning applications I have used. Apparently the Linux community has been able to master the problems associated with the several manufacturers of cd burners. The same can be said for handling digital cameras. No need to install the manufacturer's digital camera driver. Ubuntu comes loaded with just about all the digital camera photo handling software you could possibly want. As to samba, ubuntu's file sharing tools are as easy and flawless as anything you will find in Windows. I think they are superior. I really like Firefox. As I said before I like OpenOffice a lot, but that comes in Windows, Mac and Linux flavors. It is also the "product" of a large multi-national sofware manufacturer. I am trying to convince my office staff to learn it and to abandon Word Perfect.

No, the printing issue was my last straw.

I must say, however, that I find myself spending more and more time with my old Celeron--the one that runs on the 32 bit version of Ubuntu. Maybe the new machine can become the server. It does have a bigger faster harddrive and a gig of ram. Of course that would require me to master printer sharing. Hummm.....

[RazorDX]

I'm sure the Folding team here would appreciate a helping hand from your A64 box.

[glc]

Printer sharing is not difficult in itself - but you still have the issue of finding and installing a printer driver.

[faulkner132]

If your primary printer driver is not listed, try a lower model from the same manufacturer.
For example, I have an Epson Stylus CX4200 and use the Ubuntu printer drivers for the CX3200 and everything works fine.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Thanks for the tip.

[glc]

I tried using the C84 drivers for my C86 - no go. I had to chase down C86-specific drivers.

[faulkner132]

Maybe I just got lucky then. I haven't tested it with anything else.

[kilgoretrout]

You might try a different distro if you don't want to fool around with the printer drivers. I've found debian and debian based distros like ubuntu to have more issues with printers. Give fedora or mandriva a try or test it with PCLinuxOS's live cd. There are a lot of free options available and each distro has its own hardware quirks.
Linux is just like any other OS, if the driver support is bugy or not there, you can expect problems and this does vary somewhat from distro to distro, depending on kernel and kernel patching by the vendor as well as the different hardware detection/configuration systems.
I don't know anyone that has run linux for any length of time that doesn't become sensitive to hardware support for linux. You learn that hp has good linux support for its printers; that ati's binary linux drivers suck, but nvidia's are great; that software modems are poorly supported but hardware modems are better; etc, etc. And you make your hardware purchases accordingly. Long ago, I stopped trying to fit square pegs into round holes and I've had very few hardware problems on linux as a result. If your building your own systems and want to run linux, do your research first. For printers go here for example:

http://www.linuxprinting.org/

Linux supports a vast amount of hardware out of the box, much more so than windows which relies on the hardware vendors for drivers of varying quality. The amount of driver modules included in the linux kernel is huge compared to what windows has to offer out of the box. Legacy hardware is generally better supported in linux as well. Hardware vendors have no incentive to update drivers on the most recent windows OS - they want you to buy new hardware, not continue using their old hardware.