Re: [SLE] 9.1 v 9.2
From: Mark Gray (markgray-temp-1100788658_at_iago.nac.net)
Date: 12/09/04
- Previous message: Parmar, Dipakkumar: "[SLE] Font problem"
- Maybe in reply to: James F. Pirtle: "[SLE] 9.1 v 9.2"
- Next in thread: Joe Polk: "Re: [SLE] 9.1 v 9.2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Date: 09 Dec 2004 10:19:13 -0500
"Jeffrey L. Taylor" <suse@austinblues.dyndns.org> writes:
> Quoting Doug McGarrett <dmcgarrett@optonline.net>:
> [snip]
>> I am going to try another brand shortly. (I don't think
>> it's a hardware problem. I'm running the hated XP Windows on the
>> same machine without difficulty.)
> This is not a very reliable indicator. WinXP and Linux stress
> hardware in different ways. Run memtest86 overnight to check memory.
> This is often the case of runs okay under Windows and fails under
> Linux. Also Linux uses low power/throttled back states that
> Windows never or seldom uses.
There is also a potential for Linux to choke on the computer's buggy
ACPI implementation, as well as it not doing IDE dma 100% properly for
certain chipset/drive combinations. But I have installed 9.2 on two
of my computers and in spite of the fact that none of my computers can
read the double layer DVD and chew gum at the same time, I am quite
happy with 9.2 (I had to copy the double layer DVD to a hard disk
using the 9.2 rescue system on a totally quiet machine in order to
install -- any other process running at the same time will cause them
to hang, including the yast installer.) On two other machines I left
9.1 running and I can see no reason to update them so long as they are
performing their functions, and SuSE keeps issuing updates.
The bottom line as I see it is, if you are doing development work you
need SuSE 9.2 on at least some of your machines.
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com
- Previous message: Parmar, Dipakkumar: "[SLE] Font problem"
- Maybe in reply to: James F. Pirtle: "[SLE] 9.1 v 9.2"
- Next in thread: Joe Polk: "Re: [SLE] 9.1 v 9.2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
