| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: Big difference in ISO sizes?
 Posted: Mar 31, 2016 - 02:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
Posts: 3
|
|
Kanotix Spitfire 2016 Nightly LXDE ISO
--32 bit 851 MB
--64 bit 1278 MB
why there is such a large difference in ISO sizes ?
are there more packages included in the 64 bit ?
is there an included package list somewhere ?
Thanks! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject: Big difference in ISO sizes?
Posted: Mar 31, 2016 - 09:04 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: 16809
|
|
| You can look at the ${iso}.packages files. LO is only in 64 bit and Wine(-Staging). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 01, 2016 - 12:55 AM
|
|
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
Posts: 3
|
|
thanks for your reply
I prefer the 32 bit without LO + WINE |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 01, 2016 - 12:08 PM
|
|
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: 16809
|
|
| This is a very bad choice, it is basically only there for old netbooks/laptops. If you want to use Google Chrome with latest Flash it requires 64 bit now. Only Flash 11.2 is available for Firefox compared to 21 (right now) with Chrome. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Apr 01, 2016 - 02:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Mar 31, 2016
Posts: 3
|
|
I am using a Lenovo T61---for sure it is old !
I personally dislike Chrome, prefer Firefox, just stopped using Iceweasel not long ago.
Absolutely against to have WINE included, if anybody wants to run a Microsoft programs, maybe he should stay with Windoz altogether. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
