problem with boot usb

[oldgeek]

I have download the new 14.10 32-bit os for my netbook and installed it to a usb, but when I try to boot from it I get the following error message:

Missing parameter in configuration file. Keyword: path
gfxboot.c32: not a COM32R image
boot:

This goes on and on. My computer is a dual boot (Windows 7 and Kubuntu 14.04) with an intel i3 processor (presumably that requires the 32-bit rather than the 64-bit image). I have download Kubuntu on two different usb drives and in 2 different ways--the normal download image and the bittorrent image--with the same results.

Any explanations/suggestions?

[Snowhog]

See https://www.kubuntuforums.net/showth...l=1#post354769

[vinnywright]

with an intel i3 processor (presumably that requires the 32-bit rather than the 64-bit image).
Any explanations/suggestions?

also an i3 IS 64-bit ,,,,,,,so you can use ether the 32-bit OR 64-bit image

VINNY

[oldgeek]

Thanks for the link--I tried out the fix and it worked fine and now I'm using the new release on my netbook. One question--what is the difference in performance between the 32-bit version and the 64-bit version? I'm using the 32-bit on my netbook, which has the Atom processor and 2 gib of memory, so it seems most appropriate. On my desktop, however, I use an i3 processor and 4 gib of memory, and I have the 32-bit 14.04 lts installed. Should I be using the 64-bit version?

[Snowhog]

If you have a 64-bit CPU, you can install/run either the 64-bit or 32-bit version of the OS.

[vinnywright]

yup ,,,,,,, I allso got the

gfxboot.c32: not a 32 R image

Hit tab key and get this:
boot:
live check memtest....
boot:

and half to type "live"and hit enter..............................

VINNY

[Silent Observer]

Thanks for the link--I tried out the fix and it worked fine and now I'm using the new release on my netbook. One question--what is the difference in performance between the 32-bit version and the 64-bit version? I'm using the 32-bit on my netbook, which has the Atom processor and 2 gib of memory, so it seems most appropriate. On my desktop, however, I use an i3 processor and 4 gib of memory, and I have the 32-bit 14.04 lts installed. Should I be using the 64-bit version?

If you have up to 4 GiB RAM, you're unlikely to notice much difference between 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. Yes, the 32-bit ignores the top appr. half gigabyte of RAM, but unless you do something that really eats RAM (edit large images in GIMP, play huge games, etc. -- I do both, on occasion), you probably won't see much if any performance difference. In fact, I'm told that 32-bit is a tiny bit faster than 64-bit (a couple percent, as I hear it) on the same hardware, and additionally, current 32-bit Linux kernel versions use PAE (Physical Address Extension), so should recognize and use just as much RAM as a 64-bit OS.

The only time you have to run 64-bit is if you have a UEFI system instead of BIOS; apparently, those can only run 64-bit operating systems. Generally, those are the newest computers, which will have come with Windows 7 or, more likely, 8 installed (not to say a Core i3 can't have UEFI, but not all do). Since you apparently got going with 32-bit, you don't have that, so whether you run 32-bit or 64-bit is a matter of preference. I'm running 64-bit, and I occasionally have to work around a package that isn't fully 64-bit (Pipelight, for instance, or the Firestorm Second Life viewer, are both in beta state for 64-bit Linux).

[SteveRiley]

32-bit UEFI is a hack. If you require a 32-bit OS (like on the super-cheap old netbook Atoms) then just boot BIOS. Unfortunately, a bunch of newer Intel-based tablets are using 64-bit Atoms but, perplexingly, use a 32-bit UEFI firmware that has no BIOS compatibility mode -- what a ridiculous decision! There's a lively discussion in Launchpad bug 1025555 about this; so far, Ubuntu is refusing to create a bootable image for such devices. A few folks have discovered workarounds and documented them in the bug.

But that's an edge case. In the general case, I'll disagree with Silent Observer and state that one should always install the 64-bit *buntu on modern hardware. 64-bit software has many advantages over 32-bit software. And for us Linux users, we have entire distributions and applications compiled for 64-bit support, so you'll be able to take full advantage of your hardware. Placing a 32-bit operating system on 64-bit hardware denies of you that full advantage.

[oldgeek]

This 64-bit vs 32-bit thing has intrigued me enough to erase my 32-bit installation of 14.04 and to install the 64-bit version. It seems to work all right with my i3 4 gib memory desktop except for one thing--when I try to reinstall Google Earth, it only allows me to install the 32-bit version, and that doesn't work. Is this a problem with the 64-bit version? Should I upgrade my desktop to 14.10? Would it make any difference? I kind of like these problems, even if they are a bit irritating at times. One learns a lot.

[Snowhog]

Google Earth is only packaged as a 32-bit package. It will install/run on a 64-bit OS install if you obtain the 32-bit version of Google Earth.

[SteveRiley]

Google Earth is only packaged as a 32-bit package. It will install/run on a 64-bit OS install if you obtain the 32-bit version of Google Earth.

There was some discussion about this on Phoronix today. I'll start a new thread.