🚀 go-pugleaf

I use Ubuntu running UT2004 with no real problems. I have just helped a 
friend install Ubuntu on an AMD64 with very little hassle. He is using 
the 64 bit version though the 32 bit version works well even on a 64 bit 
PC. He claims UT2004 runs far better than on XP although I haven't seen 
it yet.
I think its a bit of a problem learning the new ways of Linux. So my 
recommendation is to run a dual boot system (Install Windows then 
Ubuntu) and you still have a system that works and you are familiar with 
until you get the hang of Ubuntu.
I suspect that once you do get the hang of Ubuntu you (Like most others) 
will never go back.
I'm also sure you will need some assistance while learning the new 
system so I'll recommend this site as a good starting point 
http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php

Enjoy Ubuntu I bet that in 6 months or so you will be wondering why on 
earth you bothered with the all the problems that windows has to offer 
like Viruses, trojans, worms and the nightmare that is installing 
windows software (just wait until you use Synaptic to install stuff).
Anyway with a dual boot you cant loose.

Mark

peeteedee wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:11:47 +0000, nobody wrote:
> 
>> No, i never tried it on x64 architecture.... i have installed and ran UT and
>> UT2k4 on a few linux boxes without any issues, infact i always find in runs
>> better on linux.
>>
>> Sorry i can not help..
> 
> Well, thanks anyway!  Seems like most all of the Linux UT installation
> programs (Loki, etc.) plus most of the other relatively important programs
> that run under Linux (flash player, graphic card drivers) are still mostly
> only 32 bit, thus a real challenge to get running under the newer x64
> hardware. "Cutting edge" is sometimes not all it's cracked up to be. >:-(