Re: Universal sound card?

mike wrote:

<big snip - please learn to trim your posts>

Shoulda read this first, cause Ubuntu 8.04 is what I was downloading.
Here's what happened:

Decided to install within windows on a laptop. Seemed to be the lowest
risk solution.

Although this is an option, it is definitely one I do not recommend, because
installing it into a Windows filesystem requires that an emulation layer is
used in between the Linux-native filesystem used by Ubuntu -
presumably /ext3/ - and the Windows filesystem.

Believe it or not, but this kind of approach really bogs down your
performance as it keeps the kernel busy translating the filesystem I/O all
the time.

Stuck in the Cd and clicked install. Sorry, charlie,you
need 256MB of ram...but I HAVE 256 MB of ram.

I don't really know the technicalities of an install to a file in a Windows
partition, but as I wrote higher up, this step requires an extra
translation layer which may eat up some of the memory seen by the kernel.

On the other hand, the kernel may even presume that there is less memory in
the system than there physically is, due to some memory addresses possibly
being mapped out as bad pages - in this case, the kernel will mark them as
"in use" by a dummy process, so that none of the real processes can use
those addresses.

Mind you that Windows will not report any bad memory addresses until it
tries to use them, because Windows does not perform any hardware indexing
or hardware sanity checks.

Tried another computer... same problem.

Did you also install it inside a Windows partition there? This is
important.

Fortunately, I had another computer and could google for the answer.
Need to use a magic incantation that ignores the memory limit.

This "magic incantation" simply comprises of a kernel boot parameter that
tells the kernel how much RAM you have, so that it doesn't try to compute
the amount of RAM by itself. Basically, you're overriding the boottime
memory detection routine in the kernel.

Now, this is symptomatic of my experiences with linux. Somebody made
some arbitrary decision and didn't fully consider the impact of that
decision on users.

The main arbitrary decision in this case would be your decision to install
GNU/Linux in a file in a Windows partition, which does work as a "test run
working environment" but is not the intended use of the system and can thus
also not be expected to perform fully.

If it REQUIRES 256MB, why won't it install on a system with 256MB of
memory and why can I tell it NOT to require 256MB?

See my above explanation. (1) You are not installing it as it should, but
instead you are forcing it to be installed in a Windows partition. (2)
You /may/ (or may not) have bad memory in your machine.

My lptop does NOT have shared video ram, but I expect that many do and
that should have been considered. FWIW, I routinely run win2k in 128MB of
ram.

I own a second-hand Toshiba Satellite laptop with a 1.0 GHz Celeron
processor, a 10 GB hard disk and 128 MB of RAM, of which 16 MB is shared as
video memory. It runs Mandrake 8.2 PowerPack with KDE 2.x - which is
several years old already - and despite that it's slow, it runs pretty
well.

My preferred course was to install on a 1GHZ laptop with 128MB of ram.
Ram expansion costs many times the cost of the laptop, so that ain't gonna
happen.

That's one of the reasons why I'm not upgrading that laptop either. I don't
even use it all that much - maybe once a year.

Ok, so use the magic incantation and wait almost an hour for Ubuntu to
checksum files and load 'em...error, can't read disk, do you want to try
again? Well, yes...but Ubuntu's idea of "trying again" is to START OVER.

Ehm... What else did you understand as the meaning of "try again?"

An hour later, same errror. Burned a new CD. An hour later, same error.
Replaced the CD drive. An hour later, same error.
Copied the cd to the hard drive and tried to install from there.
Windows didn't have any problems reading the cd and copying it.
Sorry, Charlie, can't install from hard drive.

Of course that wouldn't work. What were you thinking?

Had it not been for the encouragement in this thread, I'd have
said (expletive deleted)-it and gone out to do something more
fun than pulling out my hair.

Perhaps if you had started with a *proper* install instead of with a
scenario full of potential problems?

More googling.
Gotta copy the .iso file to the hard drive and install.
An hour later, it's installed...well it reboots. Turns out it takes
much longer to actually install.

Yes, due to the fact that you're not installing it on a native filesystem
but in a file inside another filesystem of a hostile (excuse for an)
operating system, of which the specifications are not free and change all
the time in order to sabotage interoperability.

I can't complain about the time to install, but I sure can complain about
the lack of feedback.
Ubuntu gives no clues about what's happening and how long it will take.
Something that looks like a progress bar halts for ten minutes at a
time, most of that with no disk activity. And when the "progress bar"
gets to the other end, it starts moving backwards. Not a clue as to
when it might be done.

There usually is a key combination to override the progress bar and get some
real output of what is happening. In fact, it is the same during boot
time, but Windows addicts don't like that; they need to see something
graphical or they get a heartattack. <grin>

Agian, developer decisions that significantly impact the user experience
based on (aparently) complete ignorance of that usere expereince.

No, more like a user decision not to Read The /Fine/ Manual and look for
trouble where there was none to begin with.

Haven't linux developers ever heard of alpha testing or focus groups?

Yes they have. However, installing GNU/Linux in a file inside a Windows
partition is not an intended focus, and manuals are made to be read.

Haven't Windows users ever heard of reading manuals? <grin>

About 14 hours into the project, I finally had linux booted. Horny
heron...I thought I was being original with the chicken-egg thing...

Yeah, I don't know where the Debian/Ubuntu guys keep getting those names
either. :p

I gotta say, I was impressed. Different user interface than I'm used to
with other linuxes, [...

Ubuntu comes with Gnome as its default desktop environment. You've
mentioned having used Knoppix before, and Knoppix uses KDE as the default
desktop environment.

...] but after poking around, I got some of it to work. It recognized my
thumb drive. I could play an mp3. Wireless network wouldn't work and I
couldn't figure out how to configure it.

Possibly there wasn't a driver for it in Ubuntu because the driver for your
adapter may have been proprietary only. You then have the choice of either
fetching such a proprietary driver for that adapter in Linux, or of using
the Windows driver with the /ndiswrapper/ kernel module.

I pulled out the card and stuffed in an old Prism 16-bit card. The
network came up and I could surf the web. Cool. Good thing
that it came up automatically, cause I couldn't have configured it.

Probably not without looking around and reading manuals, no.

So, after all that fuss and muss, I'm pretty impressed with the
improvements in the last year. One nagging problem that hasn't been
fixed is lack of user feedback. Some programs have the linux equivalent
of the windows hourglass to tell you it's busy doing something. But many
actions don't give any feedback at all. I tend to get impatient and
click it again. A minute later, several instances pop up. Lack of
feedback is unacceptable for actions that take more than a second or so.
In general, I find linux feels much slower than windows on the same
machine.

All of what you describe above leads me to believe you've got some process
hogging away on CPU cycles, and my guess is that it's the I/O translation
layer in the kernel, due to the fact that you've installed it in an
emulated filesystem environment. Do not underestimate this factor.

A second problem may be that - or so I believe - Ubuntu comes with the
Compiz Fusion window manager, which uses 3D hardware videoacceleration, and
if the 3D acceleration of your video adapter is not supported by the driver
- possibly you may need to install the proprietary driver first - then this
will be emulated in software (and in RAM, rather than in video memory) and
will also yield a very slow user experience similar to what you're
describing. 256 MB may then even be a bit too little.

A related issue is the system not keeping up with typing speed.
You bang on the keys and entry into the text box just stops for seconds
at a time. Even when it doesn't halt, I can often type faster than the
text shows up on the screen. Very disconcerting, 'cause I don't type all
that fast.

Yes, all of that agrees with what I wrote above.

I tried installing a different music player. That went without a hitch,
although I thought 40MB of stuff downloaded was excessive for a music
player.

Perhaps you needed more than just the player, i.e. dependencies, such as
video/audio codecs or other shared libraries.

I tried installing a basic programming environment. Worked fine until
I tried to run the program. Bunch of stuff missing. So much for
dependency checking.
Haven't tried plugging in a usb webcam.

Bottom line is that the core is getting better. I'm not talking about
performance. I'm talking about ability to get something, anything,
running. But there are a few implementation decisions made by geeks for
geeks that significantly impede adoption by those of us who are not geeks.

I have already commented on this higher up, so I'm not going to make my
reply any longer than it needs to be. ;-)

I wrote my first computer program in 1967. I've got advanced
engineering degrees. I've managed hardware designs for unix
workstations. I don't claim to be an ubergeek, but
I oughta be able to do this.

Then why are you putting yourself through so much trouble by deliberately
blocking your knowledge of how a computer is supposed to work and
deliberately choosing non-standard install procedures that hold a recipe
for disaster?

Typical reaction from linux users is, "you're an idiot."
That may be, but it's symptomatic of linux.

No, it is not.

"If you can't make it work, it's because you're a windows idiot." A more
productive reaction might be to consider that everybody is not a geek and
improve the user experience.

From what you write higher up, you're not exactly a computer novice. Yet a
lot of what perspires through your attitude is telling me that you are
deliberately _playing_ dumb, without _being_ dumb.

I consider myself a very good driver, and I've done some pretty wild stuff
with my very first car. I am now a more careful driver, and other people
also consider me a very good driver. My late father, who used to be a
professional driver himself, did not feel quite comfortable being in the
passenger's seat of the cars of a lot of people that he himself had taught
how to drive, or of his colleagues - all professional drivers as well - but
he did feel comfortable with me behind the wheel.

Yet, if I suddenly decide to turn left when on my immediate left there isn't
a road but a house, then I will wreck my car and induce some domestic
disturbance to the inhabitants of that house. The bottom line: I could
drive my car the way I'm supposed to, or I could do something irrational
and smack into a house on purpose.

It would be my choice. And you're acting like you're just aching to smack
into a house while at the wheel of a very fine car, and then blame it on
the car.

Quirks that you "work around" every day can be show stoppers for the
uninitiated. How simple the solution is not nearly as important as how
widely known the solution. Better yet is NOT to need a solution.

Still better yet is to use the system for what it was designed.

Like it or not, the way Windows works is the way all computers have to
work.

You mean they all have to use backwards concepts from single-user personal
computers that only had floppy drives, have you running all processes with
administrator privileges, be open to any kind of virus infection by the way
execute permission is handled, with the concepts of "security", "memory
management", "filesystem organization", "interprocess communication" and
"stability" all being implemented with the same slack jaw as is expected
from the drooling click-addicts looking at the 5000 USD names of simple
operating system components and menu items?

You don't get to change that until AFTER you have significant market
share.

The above comment is totally absurd and non sequitur.

--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Printer fatal error during installation
    ... You meant you uninstalled your printer driver. ... Restart if necessary to get the hdw recognized by Vista. ... software,download and install the latest printer driver or software from ... The default printer setting may change after you install Windows Vista SP1 ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: Crashes and the Blue Screen of Death!
    ... but the most common cause is hardware failure. ... The most common cause of this is hardware memory corruption. ... are listed on the Windows 2000 Hardware Compatibility List. ... recommended that all users install them as they become available. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Cant successfully load Windows!!
    ... I purchased an Alienware M51 7700 laptop in October. ... driver in order for the Windows install CD to see the drive. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Is any part of Ethernet circuitry tied to Open Firmware?
    ... an operating system (Windows) must be ... The Mac is, but we're talking about Windows here, dumbkopf! ... There is no driver for the DSL modem. ... during the ordinary OS X install process. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Harddisc cant be found on Windowx XP pro install on Amilo Pi1536
    ... To do a clean install, boot the Windows XP install CD-Rom. ... your computer's hardware configuration and then begins to install the Setup ... prompted to insert the manufacturer supplied Windows XP driver for your ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)