From: "Robert Comer" 

That sucks.

--
Bob Comer


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:453ae5df{at}w3.nls.net...
> On a side note Linux support for the Intel 965 chipset and Core 2 Duo
> really sucks for a CD/DVD install/live boot ( even tried the Kubuntu 6.10
> release candidate to no avail )
>
>
> http://www.codemonkeyx.net/node/12
> However, somewhere along the line the decision was made by the Linux
> kernel development community to not add support for the JMicron JMB368
> chip that pretty much every P965 motherboard is using to provide PATA
> drive support. Because there is currently no Kernel support for this chip
> you can not easily install Linux on any system if you have a PATA DVD-Rom
> drive or Hard-drive. With no DVD you can not install Linux unless you try
> doing a network boot, or use USB drives etc. But that is not practical for
> most people.
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Core_2_Duo_Support
>
>
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:45397203$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> It's a desktop with a E6600 2.4 ghz Core 2 Duo and 2 gig  ram.
>>
>> Cool, that should be even faster than my 5 month old Pentium 930 with 2GB
>> RAM.  You will get used to dual core pretty quickly.
>>
>>>I've already bled in the case though - usually a good sign as a sacrifice
>>>to the computer gods. 
>>
>> So was it the kind that you bleed all over everything before you noticed
>> the cut.  (that's the best way. )
>>
>> I knuckled under on my 930, I actually got a Dell...
>>
>> --
>> Bob Comer
>>
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:45393d33$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> It's a desktop with a E6600 2.4 ghz Core 2 Duo and 2 gig  ram. That's if
>>> I don't break anything assembling it. I've already bled in the case
>>> though - usually a good sign as a sacrifice to the computer
gods. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer"  wrote
in message
>>> news:4539202e{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> Thanks. I may install it anyway as I just purchased
the components for
>>>>> a core 2 duo system and I need to really stress the mb, cpu  and
>>>>> memory before I install a stable OS on it. 
>>>>
>>>> Virtual machines...
>>>>
>>>> How much RAM and is it a laptop version of the CPU?
>>>>
>>>>> You probably just found one of the 1,400 bugs that RC2
shipped with.
>>>>
>>>> It's not an acknowledged bug by them, but I think it may
be a symptom
>>>> of something that may be.
>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully that will be fixed when an RTM of 500 ( or
less ) known bugs
>>>>> ships
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it. :(
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:45391a3c{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> Thanks. I may install it anyway as I just purchased
the components for
>>>>> a core 2 duo system and I need to really stress the mb, cpu  and
>>>>> memory before I install a stable OS on it. 
>>>>>
>>>>> You probably just found one of the 1,400 bugs that RC2
shipped with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully that will be fixed when an RTM of 500 ( or
less ) known bugs
>>>>> ships
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:45390f6f{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> >I just saw some posts/responses on the
>>>>>> >Microsoft.public.vista.installation_setup
forum that said RC2
>>>>>> >wouldn't install on less than 512. Of course
the guy attempting the
>>>>>> >installation had only 256 mb but was able to
install Vista under an
>>>>>> >earlier beta but not RC2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What can I say, I've installed it in less than 512M...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just did an msdn dl of RC2 last night and
haven't attempted
>>>>>>> anything with it yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I'd bother if I were you, it's not a
real good quality
>>>>>> build and RTM is coming soon.  I can BSOD or
lockup me new Pentium
>>>>>> 930 machine just by moving the mouse during boot. 
(and that's just
>>>>>> the start of the problems.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4538f3fc$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>I just saw some posts/responses on the
>>>>>>>Microsoft.public.vista.installation_setup forum
that said RC2
>>>>>>>wouldn't install on less than 512. Of course
the guy attempting the
>>>>>>>installation had only 256 mb but was able to
install Vista under an
>>>>>>>earlier beta but not RC2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just did an msdn dl of RC2 last night and
haven't attempted
>>>>>>> anything with it yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4538e7e7{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>> Vista RC2 won't even install if your
memory is less than 500 mb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not a true statement, 512M is just
the recommended.  I've
>>>>>>>> installed it in less.  I wouldn't want to
run it regularly in less,
>>>>>>>> but it does work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 512M story came about because of a bug
a few builds back...
>>>>>>>> (6-months ago)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and many of the recommendations I've
seen lately for Vista are 1
>>>>>>>>> gig minimum, 2 gig comfortable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It depends on what you want to do and the
GUI you want to run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4538e2e8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>> Vista RC2 won't even install if your
memory is less than 500 mb
>>>>>>>>> and many of the recommendations I've
seen lately for Vista are 1
>>>>>>>>> gig minimum, 2 gig comfortable. I
think that rules out a good
>>>>>>>>> portion of the computers currently out
there. Microsoft's ECC
>>>>>>>>> recommendation was for the system
builders and new Vista hardware.
>>>>>>>>> I doubt they care about upgrades of
older hardware
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4538d134$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>>> Most computers today aren't even
setup to run with ECC so putting
>>>>>>>>>> ECC memory in one of these
computers either wouldn't provide ECC
>>>>>>>>>> benefit or would keep the computer
from even booting.  Isn't this
>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Funny, it used to be that all
motherboards were ECC memory, then
>>>>>>>>>> windows 95 came in and suddenly
all motherboards were non-ECC.
>>>>>>>>>> Now a new version of windows wants
to go back to ECC??  Why did
>>>>>>>>>> we ever leave ECC to begin with?
Was it to keep windows 95 from
>>>>>>>>>> crashing left and right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:4538c60c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> It would be a good thing if
all memory were ECC ( overclocking
>>>>>>>>>>> gamers would hate it though). 
I doubt many of the low to mid
>>>>>>>>>>> end system builders will use
ECC and it will be interesting to
>>>>>>>>>>> see how much a bad rap Vista
gets due to flacky memory
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Mike N."
 wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>
news:1obhj21b1g6bf2mpfv5f7njef031uls63v{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006
22:54:12 -0400, "Rich Gauszka"
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nearly two years ago I
met with Jim Allchin, co-President
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Platforms and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Services Division at
Microsoft who headed the Vista development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>effort, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jim said Vista should
only be used with ECC memory. Virtually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>every OEM had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a fit and PR folks
piled on Jim so he wouldn't say that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>anymore. However, my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>own experience with
Vista suggests he may have been right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Ahhh ... the wisdom of
the pajama consultant!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Vista uses memory
aggressively and if there is a memory error
>>>>>>>>>>>> it will blue
>>>>>>>>>>>> screen."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   And what OS wouldn't
blue screen?   It must be that Vista is
>>>>>>>>>>>> accessing
>>>>>>>>>>>> memory in different
patterns that escaped previous usage and
>>>>>>>>>>>> testing
>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns.   This is like
the old OS/2 days where OS/2 was the
>>>>>>>>>>>> bad guy
>>>>>>>>>>>> because it tested all the
RAM on the PC and crashed left and
>>>>>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5