Hmm...WhiteKnight wrote:I just install in a second partition of the hard drive and when it load successfully it just crash and then show the desktop then after 2 minutes it crash and show up Blue Screen. No warning or error message...
I would like to have a bit of help.canine wrote:Hmm...WhiteKnight wrote:I just install in a second partition of the hard drive and when it load successfully it just crash and then show the desktop then after 2 minutes it crash and show up Blue Screen. No warning or error message...
Bizarre.
Yeah, that's definitely out of the ordinary.
If you want help, I could give you suggestions.
SLI 3 ways with 9800 GeForcecanine wrote:Do you know what graphics card you have?WhiteKnight wrote: I would like to have a bit of help.
And your suggestion would be?
Other system details would be helpful.
Wat.WhiteKnight wrote: SLI 3 ways with 9800 GeForce
Xeon Quad Cores
4 TB hard drive
Blu Ray device
32 GB of RAM
And Liquid Cooling if that count
That pretty much it and anything else you want me to add?
I'm not joking around, this is pretty much is my computer I'm using. 32 GB RAM is for several virtual PC that I use. And I'll try your suggestion for stability and Ubuntu seems to be missing a lot of tools for terminals so Fedora 9 option still remain the best choice.canine wrote:Wat.WhiteKnight wrote: SLI 3 ways with 9800 GeForce
Xeon Quad Cores
4 TB hard drive
Blu Ray device
32 GB of RAM
And Liquid Cooling if that count
That pretty much it and anything else you want me to add?
Are you jerking me around? What in the world could you possibly need 32 gb of ram for?
And I'd suggest grabbing the latest release of Ubuntu and trying that out. I hear it it's rather good for noobs. It's supposed to take care of any hairy details.
Fedora does this mostly, but Ubuntu bends over backwards to do it. And since you have an nvidia card, I'd suggest that whatever you use, you get the proprietary graphics driver. I have to hand it to nvidia: they write bangin' drivers for unix systems.
Damn fine drivers.
If you're using fedora, I suggest you do the following: install yumex, install support for for the livna repo, and then grab the nvidia drivers from there.
tl; dr: When you get a GNU/Linux system set up properly, it should run exceedingly well. Very stable, very efficient and all that good stuff. At that point it should almost never crash. Getting it set up properly, however, can range from much easier than a windows install (ubuntu) to holy-fucking-shit-that's-hard (lunar).
Hmm...WhiteKnight wrote: I'm not joking around, this is pretty much is my computer I'm using. 32 GB RAM is for several virtual PC that I use. And I'll try your suggestion for stability and Ubuntu seems to be missing a lot of tools for terminals so Fedora 9 option still remain the best choice.
Well it just haven't install the tools therefore I don't know all the commands or techniques to install commands so Fedora 9 seems to have it all sorted out.canine wrote:Hmm...WhiteKnight wrote: I'm not joking around, this is pretty much is my computer I'm using. 32 GB RAM is for several virtual PC that I use. And I'll try your suggestion for stability and Ubuntu seems to be missing a lot of tools for terminals so Fedora 9 option still remain the best choice.
What tools would you be missing?
I ask this because I can't imagine that there's anything you can get on fedora that you can't with ubuntu.
Personally, I use fedora and I like fedora, but any GNU/Linux distro should run just about any software that any other can, provided you have access to the source code.
Slack on, brother!The_Dark_Avenger wrote:OMG... 32 GB RAM
Well, I'm satisfied on 100% with 256MB RAM and 40GB harddisk. I'm using Slackware, generally in text mode, got httpd, ftpd, mysqld and a lot of other stuff launched all the time, but generally, system doesn't even need to swap.
If you think about it, it only takes one idiot wanting to hinder to make viruses that bypass security programs when it's in open source. When it's in closed source, it's more likely that someone who is on the inside does it and you find the culprit. Unless, of course, it somehow gets leaked or decompiled.canine wrote:Closed source is terrible for security. Reading the source makes it easy to fix the problem, and with more people wanting to help than hinder, software improves faster when the source is open.Grand_Master wrote:Freeware is great!
Sure, there could be spyware and stuff included. But still, if you use some common sense, there's alot of great freewares out there.
Always be cautionus on the net, but don't be "afraid" for using freeware.
Lots of anti-virus/spyware programs isfreeware, but not open source. That's to prevent crackers for making virus that bypasses the sequrity, by reading the source, I suppose.
That's one thing that can justify closed source.
This does not mean that I dislike open source.
And there is very little good freeware, by virtue of the fact that most closed source is crap due to the inherent crappiness of closed source.
