Re: Problem - Solved - Re: Starting with Linux
From: BobS (spam_at_spam.com)
Date: 11/18/05
- Next message: Vahis: "Re: Long wait-time for initial hostname lookups"
- Previous message: houghi: "Re: cron logging"
- In reply to: Valentin Guillen: "Re: Problem - Solved - Re: Starting with Linux"
- Next in thread: BobS: "Re: Problem - Solved - Re: Starting with Linux"
- Reply: BobS: "Re: Problem - Solved - Re: Starting with Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:55:50 GMT
Valentin,
No doubt that you thought it was hardware related and your overall
suggestion was spot on. I just like to make sure that all possibilities are
looked at before telling someone their hardware is dead meat when it may not
be. According to some on-line sources, memory for that system should not be
that expensive and will certainly be a lot less expensive to upgrade than
buying a new computer.
As I'm writing this, I dusted off an old P3 Celeron 300MHz system that was
stashed away and only has 128Mb memory. I threw in a 16Gb drive, fdisk'd it
and running a memory test on it now. Looks good so far, so I'm going to be
loading up v10 (retail package) in a couple of moments and I should be
seeing the same symptoms Rod is seeing.
If I do, then I'll boost the mem to 512 and reload. Stay tuned....
Bob S.
"Valentin Guillen" <usenet1@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.18.15.56.11.273566@myrealbox.com...
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:08:33 +0000, BobS wrote:
>
>> Rod,
>>
>> You just solved the mystery and you do have a hardware problem - not
>> enough memory for ver 10. Minimum requirements are 256Mb and the
>> Recommended amount is 512Mb. So here's what I believe is happening:
>
> I've been following this thread for days, and I was certain that the
> answer would manifest itself. It has!
>
> This is the reason that I originally sugested that Rod stick with version
> 7.3. I had a laptop which had 7.3 on it. It ran just fine with 96mb of
> RAM. I made sure that SuSE had a 100mb swap partion when I installed the
> Linux. After upgrading the laptop to SuSE 9.0, I had bootup times of 4~5
> minutes. I *expected* this. After bootup, the computer is eminently
> USABLE, but slow. I expected this. I did not and will revert to 7.3, but
> I understand WHY I have a five minute bootup time. I like the features of
> 9.0, so I will not revert to the earlier version. The earlier version had
> everything I needed at the time.
>
> My laptop is a Pentium 133mz, with the 96mb RAM. It is simply not worth
> investing in more specialized RAM for the dinosaur. With the RAM
> limitation, it is imperative that there be a sizable swap partition
> created during installation, because it will be swapping like crazy during
> usage. That's precisely what it should be doing.
>
> To reiterate a point in my earlier post, use the 7.3 to learn on, and when
> ready, upgrade both the hardware and software to a much newer version.
>
> Regards,
>
> vg
>
>
>> 1. SUSE does not see enough memory to support the operating system
> much
>> less DMA (direct memory access) for the hard drives - so it turns DMA
>> off. With DMA off, you will notice some system degradation and with only
>> 128Mb of RAM, it's swapping like crazy out to the hard drive which is
>> running slow because DMA is off because there's not enough memory to
>> support it. See the big -slow- circle there?
>>
>> 2. I'll bet that part of the memory is also being shared by the video (4
>> to 8Mb probably) further reducing the amount of system memory available.
>>
>> 3. I haven't checked but I'll bet ver 7.3 has lower minimum memory
>> requirements of only needing 32 Mb as WinME does and that's why it runs
>> faster.
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;272156#kb1
>>
>> 4. I think your only choices now are to either upgrade the memory, stay
>> with ver 7.3 (or a version that doesn't require as much memory) or a new
>> computer.
>>
>> 5. That computer probably uses PC100/133 type memory and it's getting
>> hard to find locally but you can try on-line. Just be sure to look up
>> the exact memory type you need. If it's the older PC100 memory, it
>> comes in several flavors (chip configuration) and can be crazy in price
>> just because its getting hard to find. Hopefully you can use the PC133
>> memory which is relatively cheap (www.pricewatch.com ) and click on
>> Memory System, and look for PC133 type. You'll need to know what the
>> max amount of memory that your computer can support in each slot. It's
>> cheap enough on line so if you can load it up to the max amount at a low
>> cost - then do it and don't worry about that 127Mb stick you have in
>> there now. If your system supports two, 512Mb sticks, then go for it
>> while its still available.
>>
>> 6. eMachines
>> http://www.emachines.com/support/product_support.html?cat=desktop&subcat=Other
>> . Use this to enter your model number and look up the specs if you can't
>> find the manuals.
>>
>> Be glad to offer any help I can, such as how to decide what memory is
>> needed (need model # of computer) and how to change out the memory
>> (piece o' cake..) but you gotta take the case off that computer first.
>>
>> Choice is yours,
>>
>> Bob S.
>>
>>
>> "rod s" <rod@surfanytime.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4dcbba47bbrod@surfanytime.co.uk...
>>> Hello again,
>>>
>>> I will try to answer the questions in as much detail as I can:
>>>
>>> In article, BobS wrote:
>>>> Rod,
>>>
>>>> Need to get unconfused here. You have Windows on one hard drive
>>>> (master) and Linux on a second hard drive - is that correct?
>>> Yes,
>>>
>>> (When I started experimenting with Linux (couple of years ago) I added
>>> this second drive (40GB). The Windows was resident on the original hard
>>> drive and as far as I understand it the loading process of Linux puts
>>> it all on the second (slave) drive. I have not had to tell it any of
>>> this in these recent trials, so I must have told the v7.3 what to do
>>> originally and Linux must detect this somehow when (re-)installing any
>>> version.
>>>
>>>> 1. What version of Windows are you running (Win98SE, WinXP, WinXP
>>>> w/SP2...)
>>> It is Windows ME (millennium edition) Me 4.90.3000
>>>
>>>> 2. Name brand and model of computer (if any).
>>> It is emchines - GeuineIntel - Intel(r)Celeron(tm)processor 127.0MB RAM
>>>
>>> Is that enough... I could perhaps find the books which came with the
>>> computer.
>>>
>>>> 3. Does Windows run correctly (fast) when you boot to it (yes / no)
>>> I have never had any reason to suspect it is running slow. Some progs
>>> take 30s to load eg Firefox but I assume this is due to bloated
>>> program.
>>>
>>>> 4. When you had ver 7.3 running, was the DMA set On or Off the hard
>>>> drives?
>>> I don't know.. I suppose if it comes to re-installing v7.3 for test
>>> purposes, I could check this and other points. Systematically.
>>>
>>>> 5. When ver 7.3 was running was the DMA for the CD drive On or Off?
>>> Same answer as for q4.
>>>
>>>> 6. When ver 10 is running, you said YaST shows DMA is "NOT" on for
>>>> "both" the hard drives
>>> After installation, I looked in YaST-hardware-IDE DMA MOde. There are
>>> three lines.
>>> current DMA......device........Required Mode off hda
>>> no change off hdb no change ultraDMA/33 CD
>>> no change
>>>
>>>
>>>> 7. What was the other "place" in Linux that indicated DMA was "ON"
>>>> when running ver 10?
>>> elsewhere on the same screen you can change the DMA. You are offered in
>>> a submenu:
>>> DMA Off
>>> DMA On (default) <-----it says!!
>>> DMA/16
>>> UltraDMA/16
>>> UltraDMA/33
>>>
>>> I have never altered the CD setting
>>> I have tried DMA On
>>> I have tried UltraDMA/16
>>> I don't think I tried any of the others.
>>>
>>>> 8. Was that for the hard drives or CD?
>>> see q7
>>>> Even though the hard drives support DMA, and it sounds like your
>>>> hardware is new enough (BIOS) that it should also support DMA, it
>>>> appears you are having a conflict. YaST should be turning DMA to ON
>>>> for the hard drives and OFF for the CD/s. Double check that.
>>> see qq6-7
>>>
>>>> If YaST is turning DMA to OFF for the hard drives then maybe ver 10 is
>>>> not identifying the motherboard correctly or the drives.
>>> OK
>>>
>>>> The one thing that is troublesome is that you said you turned DMA to
>>>> ON and that buggered the boot record - which is a typical symptom
>>>> under Windows when the hardware really doesn't support DMA even though
>>>> the software shows selections to turn it on.
>>> I suppose that's it... the boot process hung (if memory is right)
>>>> I've had to reload Windows on more than one occasion trying to see if
>>>> the hardware really supports DMA.
>>>
>>>> It would be nice if you could get at the hardware to unplug the
>>>> windows drive so we can do some elimination here but you indicated
>>>> that's not possible. Anyone else around that could do that for you?
>>> The problem is space - it would be a major undertaking to get at the
>>> computer - and (I hope this doesn't sound as if I am ungrateful for all
>>> your patient help) I'm not sure it is worth the effort.
>>>
>>>> At any rate, try answering the questions above and then when you
>>>> reload ver 10, do it by the numbers, one step at a time, assume
>>>> nothing, write down any errors it gets or anything you don't
>>>> understand so we can try to sort it out.
>>> Well, when I loaded it yesterday, it didn't seem to report any errors -
>>> the whole process went smoothly. But I agree it is only sensible to do
>>> this systematically so that one does not rely on memory.
>>>
>>>> If I get the chance in the am, I'll be loading ver 10 up on one of my
>>>> test boxes here (old hardware also) and I'll let you know how it runs
>>>> - or I'll be asking you for advice....;-)
>>> LOL
>>>> Don't give up on it yet. We just need to get it back to ground zero
>>>> and go from the known to the unknown - one step at a time. So keep a
>>>> pencil and paper handy to jot down anything that looks flaky. It just
>>>> may be the clue needed.
>>>
>>> The word 'just' is rather encouraging. I am not planning to do anything
>>> till I hear from you - with a plan of campaign and then anything I do
>>> will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence.
>>>
>>> Though all this installing and re-installing is very time-consuming,
>>> there is one bright side. The computer I use for messages such as this
>>> is a different one, so that I am not reliant upon the 'test' machine
>>> for immediate communication. This machine is not a Windows one - it is
>>> a RISC-PC if that means anything to you. But if it helps in all of this
>>> I do have another older Windows machine which is running Windows 98 but
>>> only has the one hard disk.
>>>
>>> --
>>> /\ _ \
>>> |==============| / / / \__\ |=====================|
>>> | Rodger Davis | /_/ / / / \ |rod@surfanytime.co.uk|
>>> |==============| / \_/\_/ /___) |=====================|
>>>
>>>
>
- Next message: Vahis: "Re: Long wait-time for initial hostname lookups"
- Previous message: houghi: "Re: cron logging"
- In reply to: Valentin Guillen: "Re: Problem - Solved - Re: Starting with Linux"
- Next in thread: BobS: "Re: Problem - Solved - Re: Starting with Linux"
- Reply: BobS: "Re: Problem - Solved - Re: Starting with Linux"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|